From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com (mail-wm1-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85341223304 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.51 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734019347; cv=none; b=A5cYPBdjt9BCI0kAAU9c7xRXG3fpP9TsYZrSlS7Xco32Oym2KZvBxNmpWqqf71ab09qfc12i46v07TWds2TknfnGfn/l+FopVGF07tWfv9H83/VoZJgu6rtsTLEpNJJhrOzaFghkRXTdn85tjtY8ysdvwh1jsV2ss70fA0jaoo0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734019347; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RjD39zlfgTf9pkfh7d/i5jdOBcMRTVOOmItBJQWuHFc=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=X5kmmB+OwOykxobxR2sKfmrbdNG8ZZaznAHjZFb9qCnL7XHLqpR8etdyGI+lxrGJ1tbiZ/w6Usp1WMHfodfFz25NLAreH/r6YnV3Rp5zdqUadq2TUhrzg2hHvzDCNm4tGhQB/wF2G5AdJMBy8V6I0bI0QAasJ/P9BMJGDIBq3CI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=Yy3rJ9q8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.51 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Yy3rJ9q8" Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43622354a3eso5808315e9.1 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:02:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734019343; x=1734624143; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CyZOc9WzqbeMb86755vK+LfhFLqwmrAR5+Ltt8vp+yA=; b=Yy3rJ9q8Pikwwi75UQ8VEfwEZbUXb95pBidOED1idJ1NSPF+XOwIpqKw068cHmXHca QkstcIStFKfs5VLwAmFtYe79SxMEK/6G5PteZoIl1ZaMgjM+Lt5po7i2ZKlZ5DvVf3g/ PvjHrKngJMLJHD2XTlGA31anQpEZuQ/6OJJ0EF0GHWyL7/8XOZoc2xP+J0cCZ1IYUqvQ 12OrMaFjFfg8XJwdff/WRPcEOwMErhCm4mLc9TeQhV3rj3ee55fWesaKl4PerOvpJ+pG lVzS2abxssGprCOc8gvqanMT9EUiwyvQEoViQx7jB+/wTxnJV3Eo2RRhO8eZWuY4URJr b8pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734019343; x=1734624143; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CyZOc9WzqbeMb86755vK+LfhFLqwmrAR5+Ltt8vp+yA=; b=Yl7zNLTGczDPKvLf+W2joDaSd2nODKS3ldCsOgMTMcP17b/iS7HdbZyv18uwGrtPyk M9SL/ei/DfHDVEOg65mAebRjjksrAukiAh7zFrGNByfiFH3nilg8SOXp86w1hujhDdFn y6iewrjkWOigpMdyQoILBspLMHAKucyZCDcCXw0EW0+nlh/s9iq8LlrsH95U88akO5fC GeTAl93k+AXEAAYRRlY757tzre8vD8MoDEFh7AdNuLhCMptRU3N8tndVKqnfRsGLNtCz n4ySi1KZ1oTM+lsRiSMGpRh0s8l/rQS+GKqmdD3dFVCKxzjvmYKuFVYtNlfFWUxgA0mz sLBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yws5EaSc4XHErMw/mXgmpqDCJx0IweJA+z7n1z820jjIcrmaaM0 yTohRFYmH371JXtBaXhA4CqnDjHO+IamcfZdKcLmNpfaaPx5Iy3CS6olKg== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs/IODTJ5ZuDgMK7ty49aaKQjavy6Jmwe3vqlAYEUlTXVoI89loUKzwYyyAVVG UVnsrsKZTcFizWyBRonsQToyvJeF7TjlXunGj96SwreTBTmisTT9nslpfpUbQJu1DDWSlDJw2ew O7PN0ZTcXRODxdrM1bnwfxpBFgmwqsL94ynlsreI3cpkjl41hswiJFtDUGwmjSfjQfEXuaMbG9H A6B8LbLABcc2cooUnbCxule2M8F6WDBlnWXDmsyck8NztS9Xb1aERb1fkBlNqtKK7qGSDI8KszX 7jgfhx7V/M1dg91maQgr X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGfa8f5u7BSnp8BOWG7mP8kfUqOdVfYCAyMU9RHHBZNBaIDLATUgtIaPYlHi2Z0ZDZFotUgYg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:a011:b0:434:eb73:b0c0 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4361c38d930mr56045365e9.5.1734019330465; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:02:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (cpc1-brnt4-2-0-cust862.4-2.cable.virginm.net. [86.9.131.95]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4362559ef66sm20795595e9.25.2024.12.12.08.02.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:02:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:02:07 +0000 From: Stafford Horne To: Linux OpenRISC , newlib@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] or1k: Fix compiler warnings Message-ID: References: <20241210125847.401222-1-shorne@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-openrisc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 11:40:06PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Stafford, > > On Dec 11 14:39, Stafford Horne wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 02:10:59PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > Hi Stafford, > > > > > > I'm not engaged in this stuff, so maybe this is dumb... > > > > > > Changing the parameter from uint32_t to void* sounds like it would have > > > been the right thing from the start, but it's also an ABI change on 64 > > > bit or1k. I could imagine the uint32_t is just a pointer value from the > > > lower 4G space on 64 bit. Do we even support 64 bit or1k? > > > > Hi Corinna, > > > > I think it's a good conncern. I put some comments on the patch below with my > > thoughts. > > > > If this is OK, I will send a v2 with a better description of each change. > > > > See below: > > [...] > > I agree that if we did have a 64-bit implementation it may be an > > issue. But there never has been one, or1k is only 32-bit. I think > > the ABI does not change with this patch. > > IIUC or1k is designed with 32 bit and 64 bit implementations in mind. Right, the architecture spec was expanded to include 64-bit but that has never taken off. > However, if there's no existing 64 bit toolchain for or1k yet, my > concern doesn't really matter. Even better if the ABI is 64 bit clean > before such toolchain is created. > > > Maybe I am wrong, but I think this is safe because: > > > > - There is no ABI change as void* and uint32_t are the same in or1k > > - There is no API change as or1k_uart.h is not a public API > > > > What do you think? > > Sounds good to me. Just go ahead with a v2 as per your suggestion. OK, thanks -Stafford