From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / boot: Correct address space of __acpi_map_table() Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 13:00:43 +0300 Message-ID: <1500285643.29303.34.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170708155030.12587-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <596C883D.6060503@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko , Hanjun Guo Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Lorenzo Pieralisi List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 12:57 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Hanjun Guo > wrote: > > On 2017/7/8 23:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > Sparse complains about wrong address space used in > > > __acpi_map_table() > > > and in __acpi_unmap_table(). > > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29: warning: incorrect type in > > > return expression (different address spaces) > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29:    expected char * > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:127:29:    got void [noderef] * > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23: warning: incorrect type in > > > argument 1 (different address spaces) > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23:    expected void [noderef] > > > *addr > > > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:135:23:    got char *map > > > > > > Correct address space to be in align of type of returned and > > > passed > > > parameter. > > > -char * __acpi_map_table (unsigned long phys_addr, unsigned long > > > size); > > > -void __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size); > > > +void __iomem *__acpi_map_table(unsigned long phys_addr, unsigned > > > long size); > > > +void __acpi_unmap_table(void __iomem *map, unsigned long size); > > > > This breaks ACPI compile on ARM64 as ARM64 has its definition for > > those > > two functions, > > Oops, missed that, sorry. > > > I see patches in linux-next already, should I add a patch on top > > to fix it, or this patch should be respined? > > Whatever Rafael prefers. I'm fine with either. > I have more patches against that c-file, perhaps better to respin. I missed ia64 too :-( -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy