On Monday, September 26, 2011 11:44:22 AM Nick Thompson wrote: > On 26/09/11 10:32, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday, September 26, 2011 11:26:51 AM Nick Thompson wrote: > >> On 26/09/11 03:06, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> arch/arm/include/asm/io.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++------------ > >>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h > >>> index 1fbc531..61f4987 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/io.h > >>> @@ -78,43 +78,49 @@ static inline phys_addr_t virt_to_phys(void * > >>> vaddr) > >>> > >>> extern inline void __raw_writesb(unsigned int addr, const void *data, > >>> int bytelen) { > >>> > >>> uint8_t *buf = (uint8_t *)data; > >>> > >>> - while(bytelen--) > >>> - __arch_putb(*buf++, addr); > >>> + int i; > >>> + for (i = 0; i < bytelen; i++) > >>> + __arch_putb(buf[i], addr); > >>> > >>> } > >> > >> This fixes the problem in these use cases, but leaves the door open. > >> > >> Would it be better to change the __arch_putb macro into an extern inline > >> function instead which would catch these and future cases? > > > > Yes, but you'll need to do that on a much larger scale. Is anyone up for > > doing it ? > > I don't follow that. I found only three (identical) definitions in arm, > sparc and sh. In those three cases __raw_writeb were also (identical) > macro 'aliases' for __arch_putb.
Oh if it's only three arches then that's fine. > > I guess you are referring to the testing required for all the boards in > those three arches, or even just arm, with changes to all the > (get|set)(b|w|l) cases? Maybe I see your point now... > > Nick. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot