On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 12:57 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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.
I missed ia64 too :-( -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
