s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Thu Nov 18 05:01:33 EST 2010
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:20:47PM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> barebox compilation with C=1 produce a lot of sparse warnings.
> >> Mainly concerning __iomem problems with readb() and similar functions.
> >> Make it sense to take care or just could be omitted?
> > I think it makes sense to work on this. Then we can see the useful
> > warnings buried under the __iomem warnings.
> > I had the idea of adding a
> > #define IOMEM(addr) ((void __force __iomem *)(addr))
> > and use it where appropriate.
> Maybe stupid question but couldn't be __iomem mechanism removed completely?
> Do we need to check for different address_space? In my opinion it
> makes no sense in
I have a better feeling letting it in. There may be no different address
spaces on Arm, but there are for exmample on x86.
You can simply do a #define __iomem in include/linux/compiler.h to
silence these kinds of warnings temporarily if you are not interested.
I agree that at least on Arm these warnings will not reveal any real
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the barebox