From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] memory: ti-emif-pm: Fix cast to iomem pointer Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:02:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20200723090230.GB25935@kozik-lap> References: <20200723073744.13400-1-krzk@kernel.org> <20200723073744.13400-15-krzk@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Olof Johansson , arm-soc , SoC Team , Markus Mayer , bcm-kernel-feedback-list , Florian Fainelli , Santosh Shilimkar , Matthias Brugger , Roger Quadros , Tony Lindgren , Vladimir Zapolskiy , Thierry Reding , Jonathan Hunter , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Linux ARM , "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..." , linux-omap "open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT"
  • List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:48:19AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:39 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > Cast pointer to iomem memory properly to fix sparse warning: > > > > drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c:251:38: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different address spaces) > > drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c:251:38: expected void const volatile [noderef] __iomem *addr > > drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c:251:38: got void * > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > --- > > drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c > > index 9c90f815ad3a..6c747c1e98cb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c > > +++ b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c > > @@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ti_emif_of_match); > > static int ti_emif_resume(struct device *dev) > > { > > unsigned long tmp = > > - __raw_readl((void *)emif_instance->ti_emif_sram_virt); > > + __raw_readl((void __iomem *)emif_instance->ti_emif_sram_virt); > > > > Maybe this shouldn't even be __raw_readl(), but instead READ_ONCE()? Won't readl() be enough? Indeed it looks problematic. > > The other accesses in this file don't use MMIO wrappers either but just treat > it as a pointer. The effect would be the same though. I think all the reads and writes are with readl() and writel(). Best regards, Krzysztof