On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:32:38 +0100 (MET)Guess so, but it should not handle the endians differently with such a change, does it?
Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Fixing:
CHECK drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:194:13: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c:196:14: warning: dubious bitfield without explicit `signed' or `unsigned'
Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Is there a reason for not doing it this way?
How is the endianness handled here (I suspect its always been broken)
Thought about it before and with the endian-issue it seem like a better solution.diff --git a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
index ad134a6..97b6daa 100644
--- a/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/pcmcia/3c574_cs.c
@@ -190,10 +190,10 @@ enum Window3 { /* Window 3: MAC/config bits. */
union wn3_config {
int i;
struct w3_config_fields {
- unsigned int ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
- int pad8:8;
- unsigned int ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1, autoselect:1;
- int pad24:7;
+ u8 ram_size:3, ram_width:1, ram_speed:2, rom_size:2;
+ u8 pad8;
+ u8 ram_split:2, pad18:2, xcvr:3, pad21:1;
+ u8 autoselect:1, pad24:7;
Just changing the int pad to unsigned int pad would be safer in terms of
not causing changes. Simply delcaring a 32bit field and bit masks to
and/or into it is probably a lot saner in the general case.