From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Chancellor Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: replace be32_to_cpu to be32_to_cpup Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 02:37:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20190430093749.GA29126@archlinux-i9> References: <20190430090044.16345-1-tranmanphong@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190430090044.16345-1-tranmanphong@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Phong Tran Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, frowand.list@gmail.com, pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Desaulniers , clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org + Nick and the list On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:00:44PM +0700, Phong Tran wrote: > The cell is a pointer to __be32. > with the be32_to_cpu a lot of clang warning show that: > > ./include/linux/of.h:238:37: warning: multiple unsequenced modifications > to 'cell' [-Wunsequenced] > r = (r << 32) | be32_to_cpu(*(cell++)); > ^~ > ./include/linux/byteorder/generic.h:95:21: note: expanded from macro > 'be32_to_cpu' > ^ > ./include/uapi/linux/byteorder/little_endian.h:40:59: note: expanded > from macro '__be32_to_cpu' > ^ > ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:118:21: note: expanded from macro '__swab32' > ___constant_swab32(x) : \ > ^ > ./include/uapi/linux/swab.h:18:12: note: expanded from macro > '___constant_swab32' > (((__u32)(x) & (__u32)0x000000ffUL) << 24) | \ > ^ > > Signed-off-by: Phong Tran > --- > include/linux/of.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/of.h b/include/linux/of.h > index e240992e5cb6..1c35fc8f19b0 100644 > --- a/include/linux/of.h > +++ b/include/linux/of.h > @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static inline u64 of_read_number(const __be32 *cell, int size) > { > u64 r = 0; > while (size--) > - r = (r << 32) | be32_to_cpu(*(cell++)); > + r = (r << 32) | be32_to_cpup(cell++); > return r; > } > > -- > 2.21.0 > While the patch does remove the warning, I am not convinced that this isn't a clang bug based on my brief analysis here: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/460#issuecomment-487808008 However, I'm waiting for people smarter than I am to comment on whether that sounds correct or not. I am not familiar with the various different big/little endian functions enough to review this but thank you for the patch! Nathan