Hi, Simon
On 1/23/2015 5:25 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 21 January 2015 at 04:09, Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com> wrote:
Abstracting dev_get_addr can improve drivers that want to
get device's address.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com>
---
drivers/core/device.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
index 963b16f..0ba5c76 100644
--- a/drivers/core/device.c
+++ b/drivers/core/device.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
#include <common.h>
#include <fdtdec.h>
#include <malloc.h>
+#include <libfdt.h>
#include <dm/device.h>
#include <dm/device-internal.h>
#include <dm/lists.h>
@@ -390,3 +391,21 @@ ulong dev_get_of_data(struct udevice *dev)
{
return dev->of_id->data;
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
+void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
My approach so far has been to use a ulong for the device address
(e.g. in platform data) and only use a pointer when we know the type
(e.g. struct disp_ctlr *), typically in driver-private data.
So do you think it would be better to return FDT_ADDR_T_NONE?
Sorry for the long time delay to reply.
Do you agree this way using ulong as the return type?
"
#ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
unsigned long dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
{
fdt_addr_t addr;
addr = fdtdec_get_addr(gd->fdt_blob, dev->of_offset, "reg");
return addr;
}
#else
unsigned long dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
{
return FDT_ADDR_T_NONE;
}
#endif
"
Is it better to move this piece of code to include/dm/device.h and using
static inline prototype? or put them still in driver/core/device.c?
+{
+ fdt_addr_t addr;
+
+ addr = fdtdec_get_addr(gd->fdt_blob, dev->of_offset, "reg");
+ if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE)
+ return NULL;
+ else
+ return (void *)addr;
+}
+#else
+void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ return NULL;
+}
+#endif
--
1.8.4
Regards,
Simon
Thanks,
Peng.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
