[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f74dbbcb-1628-4280-92e8-d89823a3a318@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 06:34:43 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Wim Van Sebroeck
<wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] clocksource/drivers/timer-vt8500: Prepare for
watchdog functionality
On 5/19/25 04:34, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 5:24 AM kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alexey,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
>>
>> [auto build test WARNING on 92a09c47464d040866cf2b4cd052bc60555185fb]
>>
>> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Alexey-Charkov/dt-bindings-timer-via-vt8500-timer-Convert-to-YAML/20250516-025729
>> base: 92a09c47464d040866cf2b4cd052bc60555185fb
>> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250515-vt8500-timer-updates-v3-3-2197a1b062bd%40gmail.com
>> patch subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] clocksource/drivers/timer-vt8500: Prepare for watchdog functionality
>> config: loongarch-randconfig-r123-20250517 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250518/202505180911.hDevFA1N-lkp@intel.com/config)
>> compiler: loongarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
>> reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250518/202505180911.hDevFA1N-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202505180911.hDevFA1N-lkp@intel.com/
>>
>> sparse warnings: (new ones prefixed by >>)
>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-vt8500.c:201:51: sparse: sparse: incorrect type in assignment (different address spaces) @@ expected void *platform_data @@ got void [noderef] __iomem *static [assigned] [toplevel] regbase @@
>> drivers/clocksource/timer-vt8500.c:201:51: sparse: expected void *platform_data
>> drivers/clocksource/timer-vt8500.c:201:51: sparse: got void [noderef] __iomem *static [assigned] [toplevel] regbase
>>
>> vim +201 drivers/clocksource/timer-vt8500.c
>>
>> 175
>> 176 /*
>> 177 * This probe gets called after the timer is already up and running. This will create
>> 178 * the watchdog device as a child since the registers are shared.
>> 179 */
>> 180 static int vt8500_timer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> 181 {
>> 182 struct platform_device *vt8500_watchdog_device;
>> 183 struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> 184 int ret;
>> 185
>> 186 if (!sys_timer_ch) {
>> 187 dev_info(dev, "Not enabling watchdog: only one irq was given");
>> 188 return 0;
>> 189 }
>> 190
>> 191 if (!regbase)
>> 192 return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM,
>> 193 "Timer not initialized, cannot create watchdog");
>> 194
>> 195 vt8500_watchdog_device = platform_device_alloc("vt8500-wdt", -1);
>> 196 if (!vt8500_watchdog_device)
>> 197 return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM,
>> 198 "Failed to allocate vt8500-wdt");
>> 199
>> 200 /* Pass the base address as platform data and nothing else */
>> > 201 vt8500_watchdog_device->dev.platform_data = regbase;
>
> Frankly, given that this driver only applies to VT8500 (which is ARM
> based), the warning appears a bit overzealous. After all, on ARM MMIO
> addresses are in the same physical address space as normal memory
> addresses, and furthermore this platform_data is never dereferenced
> directly anyway.
Guess we'll need AI compilers in the future to help them know that.
I for my part would argue that "this warning can be ignored" is the
source of many problems flying under the radar.
>
> I could silence the warning either by more aggressive casting or by
> wrapping the pointer into some struct, but both of those sound a bit
> overreaching. Would appreciate guidance from the list on how to best
> approach this.
>
First of all, I am quite sure that using platform drivers for this is the
wrong approach to start with. This seems to be a perfect candidate for
an auxiliary driver.
Second, I do consider passing an iomem pointer as platform data to be
inherently unsafe. I would very much prefer either passing a regmap
pointer or, if that doesn't work, a data structure.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists