From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: York Sun Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:25:45 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] debug warning In-Reply-To: <20150715222334.00f2ddca@lilith> References: <55A6BC3F.9010003@freescale.com> <20150715222334.00f2ddca@lilith> Message-ID: <55A6C1C9.7090802@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 07/15/2015 01:23 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hello York, > > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:02:07 -0700, York Sun > wrote: >> Simon, >> >> Did it happen to you with this warning? >> >> lib/fdtdec.c:108:4: warning: format ?%x? expects argument of type ?unsigned >> int?, but argument 3 has type ?fdt_size_t? [-Wformat=] >> debug("addr=%08lx, size=%08x\n", >> ^ >> >> I think when we have 64-bit physical address, as defined in fdtdec.h, this debug >> statement needs to be changed. I am thinking to change the typedef fdt_addr_t to >> phys_addr_t, and fdt_size_t to phys_size_t. What do you say? > > I say there is no reason to change a type just because a printf format > specifier is wrong for it when building for 64-bit. > > Is there a rationale apart from the format specifier error? > > If not, then What should be done is fix the specifier so that it is > correct in both 32 and 64 bits. > Albert, Let me send a RFC patch so you can comment on it. York