There are some calls to bdinfo_print_num_l() with parameters that
could be a 64-bit value on a 32-bit system. Change those calls to
use bdinfo_print_num_ll() instead.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
At present we have bdinfo_print_num() to print unsigned long numbers.
We also have print_phys_addr() which accept numbers that might be
64-bit on a 32-bit platform.
Rename these 2 functions to be clearer:
bdinfo_print_num() => bdinfo_print_num_l()
print_phys_addr() => bdinfo_print_num_ll()
While we are here, make bdinfo_print_num_ll() public so that it can
be used outside cmd/bdinfo.c in the future.
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:
It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.
Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.
Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:
void foo(bd_t *bd);
This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.
To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>
#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);
Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.
If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:
struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);
Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.
I used coccinelle to generate this commit.
The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:
<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
We don't really want to have ARM-specific code in a generic file. Create
a new arch-specific function to hold it, and move it into that.
Make the function weak so that any arch can implement it.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
