| Message ID | 20230117164133.1245749-1-arnd@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: zynqmp: fix declarations for gcc-13 | expand |
Hi, Thanks for your patch. This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? On 1/17/23 8:41 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > CAUTION: This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. > > > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > gcc-13.0.1 reports a type mismatch for two functions: > > drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c:1228:5: error: conflicting types for 'zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'int(u32, enum rpu_oper_mode)' {aka 'int(unsigned int, enum rpu_oper_mode)'} [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch] > 1228 | int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > In file included from drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c:25: > include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h:552:5: note: previous declaration of 'zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode' with type 'int(u32, u32)' {aka 'int(unsigned int, unsigned int)'} > 552 | int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp.c:1246:5: error: conflicting types for 'zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'int(u32, enum rpu_tcm_comb)' {aka 'int(unsigned int, enum rpu_tcm_comb)'} [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch] > 1246 | int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h:553:5: note: previous declaration of 'zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config' with type 'int(u32, u32)' {aka 'int(unsigned int, unsigned int)'} > 553 | int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Change the declaration in the header to match the function definition. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > --- > include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > index eb88b4ba62f9..0e4c70987e6a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > +++ b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h > @@ -549,8 +549,8 @@ int zynqmp_pm_request_wake(const u32 node, > const u64 address, > const enum zynqmp_pm_request_ack ack); > int zynqmp_pm_get_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode *rpu_mode); > -int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); > -int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); > +int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode); > +int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode); > int zynqmp_pm_set_sd_config(u32 node, enum pm_sd_config_type config, u32 value); > int zynqmp_pm_set_gem_config(u32 node, enum pm_gem_config_type config, > u32 value); > @@ -849,12 +849,12 @@ static inline int zynqmp_pm_get_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode *rpu_mo > return -ENODEV; > } > > -static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, u32 arg1) > +static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode) > { > return -ENODEV; > } > > -static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, u32 arg1) > +static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) > { > return -ENODEV; > } > -- > 2.39.0 >
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 20:53, Tanmay Shah wrote: > This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. > > Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. I don't think any of our previous tooling caught this, only gcc-13 changed some of the behavior around enums. > Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? Probably a good idea: Fixes: a5e56980cfb7 ("firmware: xilinx: Add RPU configuration APIs") I can apply this directly to the soc fixes branch if you like and add that line. Arnd
On 1/17/23 12:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 20:53, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. >> >> Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. > I don't think any of our previous tooling caught this, only gcc-13 > changed some of the behavior around enums. > >> Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? > Probably a good idea: > > Fixes: a5e56980cfb7 ("firmware: xilinx: Add RPU configuration APIs") > > I can apply this directly to the soc fixes branch if you like > and add that line. > > Arnd I am ok with that. Thanks, Tanmay
Hi, On 1/17/23 21:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 20:53, Tanmay Shah wrote: >> This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. >> >> Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. > > I don't think any of our previous tooling caught this, only gcc-13 > changed some of the behavior around enums. > >> Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? > > Probably a good idea: > > Fixes: a5e56980cfb7 ("firmware: xilinx: Add RPU configuration APIs") > > I can apply this directly to the soc fixes branch if you like > and add that line. I have other patches in my soc branch to send you too. Around next week I will be sending PR for it. I can include this one too but up2you. Thanks, Michal
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, at 08:29, Michal Simek wrote: > On 1/17/23 21:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 20:53, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>> This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. >>> >>> Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. >> >> I don't think any of our previous tooling caught this, only gcc-13 >> changed some of the behavior around enums. >> >>> Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? >> >> Probably a good idea: >> >> Fixes: a5e56980cfb7 ("firmware: xilinx: Add RPU configuration APIs") >> >> I can apply this directly to the soc fixes branch if you like >> and add that line. > > I have other patches in my soc branch to send you too. > Around next week I will be sending PR for it. > I can include this one too but up2you. Since this is required for building with the latest compiler I think we want this in 6.2 and backported to stable kernels quickly. I'm about to send a fixes pull request for 6.2, so I'll just include it here. Arnd
On 1/18/23 08:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, at 08:29, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 1/17/23 21:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 20:53, Tanmay Shah wrote: >>>> This looks good to me. Thanks for fixing this. >>>> >>>> Something must have gone wrong when I ran sparse check on this patch. >>> >>> I don't think any of our previous tooling caught this, only gcc-13 >>> changed some of the behavior around enums. >>> >>>> Just one question, does this patch need "fixes:" tag? >>> >>> Probably a good idea: >>> >>> Fixes: a5e56980cfb7 ("firmware: xilinx: Add RPU configuration APIs") >>> >>> I can apply this directly to the soc fixes branch if you like >>> and add that line. >> >> I have other patches in my soc branch to send you too. >> Around next week I will be sending PR for it. >> I can include this one too but up2you. > > Since this is required for building with the latest compiler > I think we want this in 6.2 and backported to stable kernels > quickly. I'm about to send a fixes pull request for 6.2, so I'll > just include it here. ok. Deal. Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@amd.com> Thanks, Michal
diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h index eb88b4ba62f9..0e4c70987e6a 100644 --- a/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h +++ b/include/linux/firmware/xlnx-zynqmp.h @@ -549,8 +549,8 @@ int zynqmp_pm_request_wake(const u32 node, const u64 address, const enum zynqmp_pm_request_ack ack); int zynqmp_pm_get_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode *rpu_mode); -int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); -int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, u32 arg1); +int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode); +int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode); int zynqmp_pm_set_sd_config(u32 node, enum pm_sd_config_type config, u32 value); int zynqmp_pm_set_gem_config(u32 node, enum pm_gem_config_type config, u32 value); @@ -849,12 +849,12 @@ static inline int zynqmp_pm_get_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode *rpu_mo return -ENODEV; } -static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, u32 arg1) +static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_rpu_mode(u32 node_id, enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode) { return -ENODEV; } -static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, u32 arg1) +static inline int zynqmp_pm_set_tcm_config(u32 node_id, enum rpu_tcm_comb tcm_mode) { return -ENODEV; }