linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 08/12] pwm: stm32-lp: Use %llu format specifier for period

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200330193008.GA5107@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:30:08 -0700
From:   Guru Das Srinagesh <gurus@...eaurora.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        Subbaraman Narayanamurthy <subbaram@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fabrice Gasnier <fabrice.gasnier@...com>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 08/12] pwm: stm32-lp: Use %llu format specifier for
 period

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 03:45:35AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-03-19 at 18:41 -0700, Guru Das Srinagesh wrote:
> > Since the PWM framework is switching struct pwm_args.period's
> > datatype to u64, prepare for this transition by using the right
> > specifier for printing a 64-bit value.
> []
> > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-stm32-lp.c
> []
> > @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ static int stm32_pwm_lp_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
> >  	do_div(div, NSEC_PER_SEC);
> >  	if (!div) {
> >  		/* Clock is too slow to achieve requested period. */
> > -		dev_dbg(priv->chip.dev, "Can't reach %u ns\n",	state->period);
> > +		dev_dbg(priv->chip.dev, "Can't reach %llu ns\n", state->period);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> 
> Doesn't this introduce a warning now without the
> actual change to the type of state->period?

You're right, it does.

> Likely these patches should either not be separated
> or this should also use a cast to avoid introducing
> intermediate compilation warnings.

Only this patch has this specific issue, so I'll squish it with the
final patch in this series ("pwm: core: Convert period and duty cycle to
u64") that modifies the framework structs. Thanks for pointing this out.

Thank you.

Guru Das.