On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:47 PM, Nitin Garg <nitin.g...@freescale.com> wrote: > On 09/02/2014 08:41 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Hello Nitin, >> >> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Nitin Garg <nitin.g...@freescale.com> wrote: >>> On 08/31/2014 08:09 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/sys_proto.h >>>>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/sys_proto.h >>>>> index 306d699..2bbb86e 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/sys_proto.h >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx6/sys_proto.h >>>> ... >>>>> @@ -11,7 +13,7 @@ >>>>> #include <asm/imx-common/regs-common.h> >>>>> #include "../arch-imx/cpu.h" >>>>> >>>>> -#define soc_rev() (get_cpu_rev() & 0xFF) >>>>> +#define soc_rev() ((int)(get_cpu_rev() & 0xFF)) >>>> >>>> This seems unrelated change, isn't it? >>>> >>> Since get_cpu_rev returns unsigned int, this was causing >>> a mix of unsigned int and int across binary operators. >>> >>> e.g: >>> if(soc_rev() >= CHIP_REV_1_5) >> >> In this case, please split this change. >> >> Shouldn't this to be fixed in the get_cpu_rev? >> >> Cheers, >> > But get_cpu_rev is correct, it returns unsigned int. > The problem happens in hab code where there are > comparisons between int and unsigned int, hence > I think it should not be split. Pls advice.
Well, this is not up to me however in this case wouldn't be better to fix the HAB code? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot