[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <HE1PR0401MB2331E04D41F5EF9F6F1E326288E09@HE1PR0401MB2331.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 00:49:15 +0000
From: Frank Li <frank.li@....com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
CC: "mani@...nel.org" <mani@...nel.org>,
"allenbh@...il.com" <allenbh@...il.com>,
"bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"dave.jiang@...el.com" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>,
"jdmason@...zu.us" <jdmason@...zu.us>,
"kw@...ux.com" <kw@...ux.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"lpieralisi@...nel.org" <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
"ntb@...ts.linux.dev" <ntb@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v16 7/7] PCI: endpoint: pci-epf-vntb: fix sparse
build warning at ntb->reg
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 10:10:14AM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> > From: Frank Li <frank.li@....com>
> >
> > pci-epf-vntb.c:1128:33: sparse: expected void [noderef] __iomem
> *base
> > pci-epf-vntb.c:1128:33: sparse: got struct epf_ntb_ctrl *reg
> >
> > Add __iomem type convert in vntb_epf_peer_spad_read() and
> > vntb_epf_peer_spad_write().
>
> I don't understand all the bits and pieces here, but I'm a little
> dubious about adding all these "(void __iomem *)"casts. There are
> very few of them in drivers/pci/, and I doubt this driver is so unique
> that it needs them.
sparse compiler report warning without cast. I write it at commit message.
Best regards
Frank Li
>
> > @@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ static u32 vntb_epf_spad_read(struct ntb_dev
> *ndev, int idx)
> > struct epf_ntb *ntb = ntb_ndev(ndev);
> > int off = ntb->reg->spad_offset, ct = ntb->reg->spad_count *
> sizeof(u32);
> > u32 val;
> > - void __iomem *base = ntb->reg;
> > + void __iomem *base = (void __iomem *)ntb->reg;
> >
> > val = readl(base + off + ct + idx * sizeof(u32));
> > return val;
> > @@ -1132,7 +1132,7 @@ static int vntb_epf_spad_write(struct ntb_dev
> *ndev, int idx, u32 val)
> > struct epf_ntb *ntb = ntb_ndev(ndev);
> > struct epf_ntb_ctrl *ctrl = ntb->reg;
> > int off = ctrl->spad_offset, ct = ctrl->spad_count * sizeof(u32);
> > - void __iomem *base = ntb->reg;
> > + void __iomem *base = (void __iomem *)ntb->reg;
> >
> > writel(val, base + off + ct + idx * sizeof(u32));
>
> These things look gratuitously different to begin with:
>
> int off = ntb->reg->spad_offset, ct = ntb->reg->spad_count * sizeof(u32);
> int off = ctrl->spad_offset, ct = ctrl->spad_count * sizeof(u32);
>
> They're doing the same thing, and they should do it the same way.
>
> Since db_data[] and db_offset[] are never referenced except to be
> initialized to zero, I'm guessing the point of vntb_epf_spad_read()
> and vntb_epf_spad_write() is to read/write things in those arrays?
>
> You access other things in ntb->reg directly by dereferencing a
> pointer, e.g.,
>
> ntb->reg->link_status |= LINK_STATUS_UP;
> addr = ntb->reg->addr;
> ctrl->command_status = COMMAND_STATUS_OK;
>
> Why don't you just compute the appropriate *index* and access the
> array directly instead of using readl() and writel()?
>
> Bjorn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists