[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161119132003.GA19781@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 14:20:03 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
liodot@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] staging: slicoss: fix different address space warnings
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 06:57:18PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Remove incorrect __iomem annotation.
>
> This patch fix the following sparse warnings in slicoss driver:
> warning: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces)
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
> index 420546d..14d7555 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/slicoss/slic.h
> @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ struct slic_shmemory {
> dma_addr_t isr_phaddr;
> dma_addr_t lnkstatus_phaddr;
> dma_addr_t stats_phaddr;
> - struct slic_shmem_data __iomem *shmem_data;
> + struct slic_shmem_data *shmem_data;
But, is this the correct fix? It looks like shmem_data is being treated
like a pointer to io memory, so we need to use the correct accessors for
that memory, and not just a "raw" pointer, right? Removing this marking
seems to be moving backwards...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists