On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Hanjun Guo <[email protected]> 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] <asn:2>* >> 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] <asn:2>*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
