[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1500285643.29303.34.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:00:43 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / boot: Correct address space of
__acpi_map_table()
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 12:57 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2017/7/8 23:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Sparse complains about wrong address space used in
> > > __acpi_map_table()
> > > and in __acpi_unmap_table().
> > >
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29: warning: incorrect type in
> > > return expression (different address spaces)
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29: expected char *
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29: got void [noderef] <asn:2>*
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23: warning: incorrect type in
> > > argument 1 (different address spaces)
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23: expected void [noderef]
> > > <asn:2>*addr
> > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23: got char *map
> > >
> > > Correct address space to be in align of type of returned and
> > > passed
> > > parameter.
> > > -char * __acpi_map_table (unsigned long phys_addr, unsigned long
> > > size);
> > > -void __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size);
> > > +void __iomem *__acpi_map_table(unsigned long phys_addr, unsigned
> > > long size);
> > > +void __acpi_unmap_table(void __iomem *map, unsigned long size);
> >
> > This breaks ACPI compile on ARM64 as ARM64 has its definition for
> > those
> > two functions,
>
> Oops, missed that, sorry.
>
> > I see patches in linux-next already, should I add a patch on top
> > to fix it, or this patch should be respined?
>
> Whatever Rafael prefers. I'm fine with either.
> I have more patches against that c-file, perhaps better to respin.
I missed ia64 too :-(
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists