Skip to contentSkip to conversation

T4 U-boot: ctrl_regs.c: wr used uninitialized

U-Boot Scott Wood 1 participant 2 messages Mar 26, 2012

lore
Share & tools
lore

Scott Wood

author
#0 lore raw

I get this in the T4 branch of U-Boot:

Quoted 3 lines

Configuring for T4240QDS_EMU - Board: T4240QDS, Options: EMU ctrl_regs.c: In function 'compute_fsl_memctl_config_regs':
ctrl_regs.c:852:15: warning: 'wr' may be used uninitialized in this function

It does not appear to be a false positive (though it is an error path), and in any case such warnings should be squashed so that real warnings stick out.

It was introduced by this patch:

Quoted 10 lines

commit 18496c6d6cf46177e7faeb364cfe5baddb8cf71e

Author: York Sun <[email protected]>
Date:   Tue Dec 13 14:16:55 2011 -0800

powerpc/mpc8xxx: Add support for cas latency 12 and above

Required by JEDEC 79-3E for high speed DDR3.
Also change "CSn disabled" message to debug.

I also don't see the T4 patches being posted to the mailing list -- why?

And why is there any notion of a 32-bit physical address map for T4, and a README that suggests the 32-bit address map is used?

-Scott

author
#1 lore raw
Quoted 21 lines · Scott Wood

I get this in the T4 branch of U-Boot:

Quoted 3 lines

Configuring for T4240QDS_EMU - Board: T4240QDS, Options: EMU ctrl_regs.c: In function 'compute_fsl_memctl_config_regs':
ctrl_regs.c:852:15: warning: 'wr' may be used uninitialized in this function

It does not appear to be a false positive (though it is an error path), and in any case such warnings should be squashed so that real warnings stick out.

It was introduced by this patch:

Quoted 9 lines

commit 18496c6d6cf46177e7faeb364cfe5baddb8cf71e

Author: York Sun <[email protected]>
Date:   Tue Dec 13 14:16:55 2011 -0800

powerpc/mpc8xxx: Add support for cas latency 12 and above

Required by JEDEC 79-3E for high speed DDR3.
Also change "CSn disabled" message to debug.

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line

I also don't see the T4 patches being posted to the mailing list -- why?

And why is there any notion of a 32-bit physical address map for T4, and a README that suggests the 32-bit address map is used?

Please ignore this, I sent it to the wrong mailing list by mistake.

-Scott