From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A25CE25554; Thu, 4 Jan 2024 16:52:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Y5nUPbA7" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1704387130; x=1735923130; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=UdCcRXEMi569p6+ITr0KHlXsSxx0feyXn0U+aodkq0k=; b=Y5nUPbA7kbyc4srFtpTeDW8aftVeQc/W7r0uy2u8lDUqToT7BBRAmM+3 he1VlQSgV5b+O0WfB9SCTW8HvQBNDc3cBC9Jjxw9Y3/gAwNAGRt9wT3Sl 1WgbITQS6BPFw4ubU9Y/XPs+Uj8Z573UPeO+5B8PnNvjHPcsPpEOtzl0Z toel2EI605/zMGArnEUq3yjuy3a+X5PU/r5M3+6wsxnDBBSBOPX445IHU eKke9xPgps56w7kqJdjmolyokR/krreaShvjnIK1qwqV9gC7FFfsl6Taq 2m/wuKOfj3ZHAkO//dZDucgwfbTY17M4flvLVKkY05gzJS10YUS06wvm1 Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10943"; a="382278649" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,331,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="382278649" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jan 2024 08:52:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10943"; a="814705023" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.04,331,1695711600"; d="scan'208";a="814705023" Received: from pdelarag-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.252.36.32]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jan 2024 08:52:06 -0800 From: Jani Nikula To: Stephen Rothwell , Dave Airlie Cc: Linux Next Mailing List , Andrzej Hajda , DRI , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the drm tree In-Reply-To: <20240103122734.16b29e09@canb.auug.org.au> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo References: <20240102111222.2db11208@canb.auug.org.au> <20240103121911.4ec8f237@canb.auug.org.au> <20240103122734.16b29e09@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2024 18:52:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87frzdyrbg.fsf@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, 03 Jan 2024, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > OK, the only thing I can find is that there are 2 intel_wakeref.h files > that have different definitions for intel_wakeref_t: > > ./drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wakeref.h:typedef unsigned long intel_wakeref_t; > ./drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/intel_wakeref.h:typedef bool intel_wakeref_t; > > and the two compilations above seem to use different include paths, but > how the single character change causes that is beyond me. There are a few things going on here, but the gist of it is that intel_wakeref_t is supposed to be an opaque cookie, and printing its value does not make sense, especially not when you can't be certain which printf format should be used for it. Fix at [1], thanks for the report. BR, Jani. [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240104164600.783371-1-jani.nikula@intel.com -- Jani Nikula, Intel