[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <20160218013705.GI10719@samsunx.samsung>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:37:06 +0900
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc: Sangbeom Kim <sbkim73@...sung.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regulator: s2mps11: Simplify expression used in
BUILD_BUG_ON
Hi Krzysztof,
> Following BUILD_BUG_ON using a variable fails for some of the compilers
> and optimization levels (reported for gcc 4.9):
> var = ARRAY_SIZE(s2mps15_regulators);
> BUILD_BUG_ON(S2MPS_REGULATOR_MAX < var);
> Fix this by using ARRAY_SIZE directly.
>
> Additionally add missing BUILD_BUG_ON check for S2MPS15 device (the
> check ensures that internal arrays are big enough to hold data for all
> of regulators on all devices).
>
> Reported-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
>
[...]
> case S2MPS11X:
> s2mps11->rdev_num = ARRAY_SIZE(s2mps11_regulators);
Why don't we remove rdev_num at all? It's not used that much
other than in the probe function.
> regulators = s2mps11_regulators;
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(S2MPS_REGULATOR_MAX < s2mps11->rdev_num);
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(S2MPS_REGULATOR_MAX < ARRAY_SIZE(s2mps11_regulators));
> break;
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists