[flashrom] [PATCH] Unsignify lengths and addresses in chip functions and structs
stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at
Tue Sep 13 23:56:27 CEST 2011
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:10:08 +0200
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 23.08.2011 17:12 schrieb Stefan Tauner:
> > compile tested with gcc 4.4.5 and clang 2.8
> I agree with the idea and support it.
> However, I don't know how supportable this is on 16 bit platforms with
> 16 bit int.
jup, "int" is a bad choice for anything but trivial counters etc. imho.
> We need at least 24 bits to handle flash addresses,
with hardware sequencing we need at least 25 bits (hwseq can address up
to 2 flash chips seamlessly).
> and we
> could either create a new typedef chipoffset_t or specify uint32_t
> explicitly. I favor a new typedef because it will make auditing easier
> if we ever run on 16 bit programmers.
introducing new types is certainly an option imo. but i think they
should be used sparely and have good names (yes, a long discussing
AGAIN :P). what about chip offset differences for example (i guess they
are needed somewhere... and maybe even in a signed version)?
in general i think the flash offset/address/size is the best candidate
for a new type and i would be in favor of using typedef instead of
other declarations of it (macros, oral/written human readable rules or
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at student.tuwien.ac.at>
> A comment about the typedef idea would be appreciated. Anyway, this is
> (even if you reject the explicit type idea)
> Acked-by: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006 at gmx.net>
ok, thanks! i'll wait a few days before (rebasing and) committing,
because it touches so much and someone may wanna postpone it for some
reason... if you want it in sooner please say so (on IRC).
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
More information about the flashrom