summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJulius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org>2013-12-09 17:46:22 -0800
committerIsaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com>2014-09-22 18:42:20 +0200
commit03784fa97a764be81ca9bcf79222e7b37e2e7692 (patch)
tree600c7de6cf1c27c3f117bf80bcd52c9e36785faa /src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h
parentc505837e67aa4fb89964c849d905fa8d44459152 (diff)
Add check_member macro to allow clean and easy struct offset checking
This patch adds a new static assertion macro that can be used to check the offsets in structures that overlay register sets at compile time. It uses the _Static_assert() declaration from the new ISO C11 standard, which is supported (even without -std=c11) by GCC after version 4.6. (There is supposedly also support in clang, although I haven't tried it... let's deal with compiler issues when/if they turn up.) I've added it to all structures for our current ARM SoCs for now, and I think every new register overlay we add going forward should use them (at least for the last member, but feel free to add more if you think it's useful). Change-Id: If32510e7049739ad05618d363a854dc372d64386 Signed-off-by: Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/179412 Reviewed-by: David Hendricks <dhendrix@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Stefan Reinauer <reinauer@chromium.org> (cherry picked from commit cef5fa13c31375a316ca4556c0039b17c8ea7900) Signed-off-by: Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/6905 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins)
Diffstat (limited to 'src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h')
-rw-r--r--src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h4
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h b/src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h
index 6388316c5e..acd9850a04 100644
--- a/src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h
+++ b/src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h
@@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ struct exynos5_dmc {
unsigned char res34[0xc];
unsigned int pmcnt3_ppc_a;
};
+check_member(exynos5_dmc, pmcnt3_ppc_a, 0xe140);
static struct exynos5_dmc * const exynos_dmc = (void *)EXYNOS5_DMC_CTRL_BASE;
@@ -136,7 +137,7 @@ struct exynos5_phy_control {
unsigned int phy_con14;
unsigned int phy_con15;
unsigned int phy_con16;
- unsigned char res4[4];
+ unsigned char res4[4]; /* NOT a mistake. Yes, it doesn't make sense. */
unsigned int phy_con17;
unsigned int phy_con18;
unsigned int phy_con19;
@@ -164,6 +165,7 @@ struct exynos5_phy_control {
unsigned int phy_con41;
unsigned int phy_con42;
};
+check_member(exynos5_phy_control, phy_con42, 0xac);
static struct exynos5_phy_control * const exynos_phy0_control =
(void *)EXYNOS5_DMC_PHY0_BASE;