Hi Bin, On 16 February 2016 at 07:51, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> The comment for file_cbfs_type() says that it returns 0 for an invalid type. >> The code appears to check for -1, except that it uses an unsigned variable >> to store the type. This results in a warning on 64-bit machines. >> >> Adjust it to make the meaning clearer. Continue to handle the -1 case since >> it may be needed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> --- >> >> cmd/cbfs.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/cmd/cbfs.c b/cmd/cbfs.c >> index 35d8a7a..cdfc9b6 100644 >> --- a/cmd/cbfs.c >> +++ b/cmd/cbfs.c >> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ int do_cbfs_ls(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, >> char *const argv[]) >> printf(" size type name\n"); >> printf("------------------------------------------\n"); >> while (file) { >> - u32 type = file_cbfs_type(file); >> + int type = file_cbfs_type(file); > > but file_cbfs_type() returns u32 as its type.. > >> char *type_name = NULL; >> const char *filename = file_cbfs_name(file); >> >> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int do_cbfs_ls(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, >> char *const argv[]) >> case CBFS_COMPONENT_CMOS_LAYOUT: >> type_name = "cmos layout"; >> break; >> - case -1UL: >> + case -1: > > What about: case (u32)-1UL:
Actually they are the same thing. This code is pretty horrible - I suspect the return value of -1 is intended, but since it is u32 they use -1UL. But there is no need for that really. > >> type_name = "null"; >> break; >> } >> -- Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot