diff options
author | Julius Werner <jwerner@chromium.org> | 2013-12-09 17:46:22 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Isaac Christensen <isaac.christensen@se-eng.com> | 2014-09-22 18:42:20 +0200 |
commit | 03784fa97a764be81ca9bcf79222e7b37e2e7692 (patch) | |
tree | 600c7de6cf1c27c3f117bf80bcd52c9e36785faa /src/soc/samsung/exynos5250/dmc.h | |
parent | c505837e67aa4fb89964c849d905fa8d44459152 (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.h | 4 |
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; |