Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751353AbdGQJ5R (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:57:17 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:34878 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751265AbdGQJ5P (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jul 2017 05:57:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <596C883D.6060503@huawei.com> References: <20170708155030.12587-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <596C883D.6060503@huawei.com> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:57:14 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ACPI / boot: Correct address space of __acpi_map_table() To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 34 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. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko