[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F702C5F@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:49:39 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Jan Moskyto Matejka' <mq@...e.cz>,
Alexey Charkov <alchark@...il.com>,
Roger Luethi <rl@...lgate.ch>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: via-rhine: fix compiler warning
From: Jan Moskyto Matejka
> Fixed different size cast warning:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c: In function rhine_init_one_platform:
> drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c:1132:13: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different
> size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
> revision = (u32)match->data;
> ^
>
> That code was added in commit 2d283862dc62daead9db0dc89cd0d0351e91f765
> ("net: via-rhine: add OF bus binding").
...
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c
> index 4fa9201..76d18e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/via/via-rhine.c
> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(pci, rhine_pci_tbl);
> * (for quirks etc.)
> */
> static struct of_device_id rhine_of_tbl[] = {
> - { .compatible = "via,vt8500-rhine", .data = (void *)0x84 },
> + { .compatible = "via,vt8500-rhine", .data = (u32 []) { 0x84 } },
> { } /* terminate list */
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rhine_of_tbl);
> @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static int rhine_init_one_platform(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (!irq)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - revision = (u32)match->data;
> + revision = *((u32 *) match->data);
> if (!revision)
> return -EINVAL;
Both those casts look horrid.
I'm not entirely convinced that the first is valid C - It would have to be
something specific to C99 initialisers.
Casts like *(u32 *)foo are also likely to be bugs (esp. on BE systems)
so themselves start ringing alarm bells.
So why not just:
revision = (unsigned long)match->data;
and add a comment that the 0x84 is the revision - #define ??
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists