From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PIe2r-0004Km-Dc for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:11:16 +0000 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:11:02 +0100 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20101117091102.GS6017@pengutronix.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: sparse warnings To: Belisko Marek Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org 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. Sascha -- 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 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox