Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Måns Rullgård <m...@mansr.com> wrote: >> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> writes: >> >>> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 18:50 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> writes: >>>> >>>> > > Tested on AVR32 (DMA driver) and Sigma SMP8642 (SATA driver). >>>> > > >>>> > > Code here: >>>> > > https://bitbucket.org/mansr/linux-dwc/branch/dwc-sata >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for testing! >>>> >>>> Have you had time to look any more at these patches? >>> >>> Not yet. >>> I will look soon for sure. >>> >>> One comment still regarding to lli types. We can avoid warnings by >>> using (__force u32) in macros. >> >> But that won't give the benefits of having the types checked. > > You mean if we access the lli->field directly? I didn't quite get what > use case you are keeping in mind.
Yes, accessing any of those fields directly with my patch gives a sparse warning. It's situations like these those checks are intended for. Defeating them seems foolish to me. -- Måns Rullgård
