[PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[John W. Linville]

  CHECK   drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:118:32: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:118:32:    expected unsigned short [unsigned] [usertype] frag_threshold
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:118:32:    got restricted __le16 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:164:24: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:164:24:    expected unsigned short [unsigned] [usertype] length
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:164:24:    got restricted __le16 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:166:22: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:166:22:    expected unsigned short [unsigned] [usertype] rate
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:166:22:    got restricted __le16 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:167:29: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:167:29:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] expiry_time
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:167:29:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:200:43: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:200:43:    expected restricted __le16 [usertype] fc
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c:200:43:    got unsigned short [unsigned] [assigned] [usertype] fc
  CHECK   drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:428:39: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:428:39:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] rx_config_options
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:428:39:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:429:39: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:429:39:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] rx_filter_options
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:429:39:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:435:29: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:435:29:    expected unsigned short [unsigned] [usertype] tx_rate
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:435:29:    got restricted __le16 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:439:47: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:439:47:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] min_duration
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:439:47:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:441:47: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:441:47:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] max_duration
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.c:441:47:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
  CHECK   drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:228:22: warning: symbol 'interrupt' shadows an earlier one
/home/linville/git/wireless-next-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h:132:13: originally declared here
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:470:21: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:470:21:    expected unsigned int [unsigned] [assigned] [usertype] val
drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:470:21:    got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>

Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
---
I made some assumptions about the endian-ness of some structure members
-- please verify!  Also, I'm reasonably certain there are more endian
issues lurking...

 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c |   10 +++++-----
 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.h  |   12 ++++++------
 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c   |   10 ++++++----
 drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.h   |    8 ++++----
 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
index 2545123..c688895 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void wl1251_boot_set_ecpu_ctrl(struct wl1251 *wl, u32 flag)
 int wl1251_boot_run_firmware(struct wl1251 *wl)
 {
 	int loop, ret;
-	u32 chip_id, interrupt;
+	u32 chip_id, acx_intr;
 
 	wl1251_boot_set_ecpu_ctrl(wl, ECPU_CONTROL_HALT);
 
@@ -242,15 +242,15 @@ int wl1251_boot_run_firmware(struct wl1251 *wl)
 	loop = 0;
 	while (loop++ < INIT_LOOP) {
 		udelay(INIT_LOOP_DELAY);
-		interrupt = wl1251_reg_read32(wl, ACX_REG_INTERRUPT_NO_CLEAR);
+		acx_intr = wl1251_reg_read32(wl, ACX_REG_INTERRUPT_NO_CLEAR);
 
-		if (interrupt == 0xffffffff) {
+		if (acx_intr == 0xffffffff) {
 			wl1251_error("error reading hardware complete "
 				     "init indication");
 			return -EIO;
 		}
 		/* check that ACX_INTR_INIT_COMPLETE is enabled */
-		else if (interrupt & WL1251_ACX_INTR_INIT_COMPLETE) {
+		else if (acx_intr & WL1251_ACX_INTR_INIT_COMPLETE) {
 			wl1251_reg_write32(wl, ACX_REG_INTERRUPT_ACK,
 					   WL1251_ACX_INTR_INIT_COMPLETE);
 			break;
@@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ static int wl1251_boot_upload_nvs(struct wl1251 *wl)
 		val = (nvs_ptr[0] | (nvs_ptr[1] << 8)
 		       | (nvs_ptr[2] << 16) | (nvs_ptr[3] << 24));
 
-		val = cpu_to_le32(val);
+		val = (u32 __force) cpu_to_le32(val);
 
 		wl1251_debug(DEBUG_BOOT,
 			     "nvs write table 0x%x: 0x%x",
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.h b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.h
index 4ad67ca..ca1cb24 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_cmd.h
@@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ struct cmd_read_write_memory {
 #define WL1251_SCAN_NUM_PROBES 3
 
 struct wl1251_scan_parameters {
-	u32 rx_config_options;
-	u32 rx_filter_options;
+	__le32 rx_config_options;
+	__le32 rx_filter_options;
 
 	/*
 	 * Scan options:
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ struct wl1251_scan_parameters {
 	 * bit 2: voice mode, 0 for normal scan.
 	 * bit 3: scan priority, 1 for high priority.
 	 */
-	u16 scan_options;
+	__le16 scan_options;
 
 	/* Number of channels to scan */
 	u8 num_channels;
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ struct wl1251_scan_parameters {
 	u8 num_probe_requests;
 
 	/* Rate and modulation for probe requests */
-	u16 tx_rate;
+	__le16 tx_rate;
 
 	u8 tid_trigger;
 	u8 ssid_len;
@@ -204,8 +204,8 @@ struct wl1251_scan_parameters {
 } __attribute__ ((packed));
 
 struct wl1251_scan_ch_parameters {
-	u32 min_duration; /* in TU */
-	u32 max_duration; /* in TU */
+	__le32 min_duration; /* in TU */
+	__le32 max_duration; /* in TU */
 	u32 bssid_lsb;
 	u16 bssid_msb;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
index c822318..a38ec19 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static void wl1251_tx_frag_block_num(struct tx_double_buffer_desc *tx_hdr)
 	frag_threshold = IEEE80211_MAX_FRAG_THRESHOLD;
 	tx_hdr->frag_threshold = cpu_to_le16(frag_threshold);
 
-	payload_len = tx_hdr->length + MAX_MSDU_SECURITY_LENGTH;
+	payload_len = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + MAX_MSDU_SECURITY_LENGTH;
 
 	if (payload_len > frag_threshold) {
 		mem_blocks_per_frag =
@@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
 	if (control->control.hw_key &&
 	    control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
 		int hdrlen;
-		u16 fc;
+		__le16 fc;
+		u16 length;
 		u8 *pos;
 
-		fc = *(u16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
-		tx_hdr->length += WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
+		fc = *(__le16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
+		length = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
+		tx_hdr->length = cpu_to_le16(length);
 
 		hdrlen = ieee80211_hdrlen(fc);
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.h b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.h
index 55856c6..dff127f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.h
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ struct tx_control {
 
 struct tx_double_buffer_desc {
 	/* Length of payload, including headers. */
-	u16 length;
+	__le16 length;
 
 	/*
 	 * A bit mask that specifies the initial rate to be used
@@ -133,10 +133,10 @@ struct tx_double_buffer_desc {
 	 * 0x0800 - 48Mbits
 	 * 0x1000 - 54Mbits
 	 */
-	u16 rate;
+	__le16 rate;
 
 	/* Time in us that a packet can spend in the target */
-	u32 expiry_time;
+	__le32 expiry_time;
 
 	/* index of the TX queue used for this packet */
 	u8 xmit_queue;
@@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ struct tx_double_buffer_desc {
 	 * The FW should cut the packet into fragments
 	 * of this size.
 	 */
-	u16 frag_threshold;
+	__le16 frag_threshold;
 
 	/* Numbers of HW queue blocks to be allocated */
 	u8 num_mem_blocks;
-- 
1.7.1.1

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Luciano Coelho]

Hi John,

Great that someone finally made the endianess changes that we never had
the time to do for wl1251. Thanks for that! :)

I took a look at your patch and I have a few minor comments below, but
the best person to comment would certainly be Kalle, not me ;)


On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 18:31 +0200, ext John W. Linville wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
> index 2545123..c688895 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c

[...]

> @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ static int wl1251_boot_upload_nvs(struct wl1251 *wl)
>  		val = (nvs_ptr[0] | (nvs_ptr[1] << 8)
>  		       | (nvs_ptr[2] << 16) | (nvs_ptr[3] << 24));
>  
> -		val = cpu_to_le32(val);
> +		val = (u32 __force) cpu_to_le32(val);

This will work, but such casts always make me a bit suspicious.  I think
this is fine for now, but later I think we should make sure that all the
_write() functions explicitly receive __le32 as val, or receives the
cpu's u32 and converts it before actually writing the value, for clarity
reasons.  Kalle, what do you think?


> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
> index c822318..a38ec19 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_tx.c

[...]

> @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	if (control->control.hw_key &&
>  	    control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
>  		int hdrlen;
> -		u16 fc;
> +		__le16 fc;
> +		u16 length;
>  		u8 *pos;
>  
> -		fc = *(u16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> -		tx_hdr->length += WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
> +		fc = *(__le16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));

Is this going to work? sizeof(*tx_hdr), and the operation, will be in
the cpu's endianess, right? Wouldn't the following be the right thing to
do then?

fc = cpu_to_le16(le16_to_cpu(skb->data) + sizeof(*tx_hdr));

Maybe some casts are needed too, I didn't check that, but regarding the
endianess, I think this is how it should go.  It's the same thing as the
length parameter:

> +		length = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
> +		tx_hdr->length = cpu_to_le16(length);

...which is treated correctly here.



-- 
Cheers,
Luca.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Luciano Coelho]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 08:34 +0200, Coelho Luciano (Nokia-MS/Helsinki)
wrote:
> > @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >  	if (control->control.hw_key &&
> >  	    control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
> >  		int hdrlen;
> > -		u16 fc;
> > +		__le16 fc;
> > +		u16 length;
> >  		u8 *pos;
> >  
> > -		fc = *(u16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> > -		tx_hdr->length += WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
> > +		fc = *(__le16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> 
> Is this going to work? sizeof(*tx_hdr), and the operation, will be in
> the cpu's endianess, right? Wouldn't the following be the right thing to
> do then?
> 
> fc = cpu_to_le16(le16_to_cpu(skb->data) + sizeof(*tx_hdr));

Ugh, as Johannes pointed out, what I said here is completely non-sense.
Please ignore this before-my-morning-coffee lapse. ;)


-- 
Cheers,
Luca.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Kalle Valo]

On 07/22/2010 08:34 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> Hi John,

Hi Luca and John,

> Great that someone finally made the endianess changes that we never had
> the time to do for wl1251. Thanks for that! :)

Yeah, it really is. wl1251 endian support has been broken almost from
day one. Unfortunately I don't any hardware to test wl1251 right now, so
we have to rely on careful review :/

>> @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ static int wl1251_boot_upload_nvs(struct wl1251 *wl)
>>  		val = (nvs_ptr[0] | (nvs_ptr[1] << 8)
>>  		       | (nvs_ptr[2] << 16) | (nvs_ptr[3] << 24));
>>  
>> -		val = cpu_to_le32(val);
>> +		val = (u32 __force) cpu_to_le32(val);
> 
> This will work, but such casts always make me a bit suspicious.  I think
> this is fine for now

This line was very suspicious already from beginning, I can't remember
why it was added and I don't see why it's needed here.

> but later I think we should make sure that all the
> _write() functions explicitly receive __le32 as val, or receives the
> cpu's u32 and converts it before actually writing the value, for
> clarity reasons.  Kalle, what do you think?

I agree that we should change write() to handle endianess properly. I'm
in favor of having the conversion in write(), but I didn't think this
that much.

>> @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>  	if (control->control.hw_key &&
>>  	    control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
>>  		int hdrlen;
>> -		u16 fc;
>> +		__le16 fc;
>> +		u16 length;
>>  		u8 *pos;
>>  
>> -		fc = *(u16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
>> -		tx_hdr->length += WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
>> +		fc = *(__le16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> 
> Is this going to work? sizeof(*tx_hdr), and the operation, will be in
> the cpu's endianess, right?

I think this is correct. We first calculate a pointer to a __le16 value
and then dereference that value to a __le16 variable.

> Wouldn't the following be the right thing to
> do then?
> 
> fc = cpu_to_le16(le16_to_cpu(skb->data) + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> 
> Maybe some casts are needed too, I didn't check that, but regarding the
> endianess, I think this is how it should go.  It's the same thing as the
> length parameter:
> 
>> +		length = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
>> +		tx_hdr->length = cpu_to_le16(length);
> 
> ...which is treated correctly here.

This is different. Here we are adding something to a __le16 value, not
calculating with pointers.

Kalle

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Luciano Coelho]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 09:45 +0200, ext Kalle Valo wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 08:34 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> >> @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>  	if (control->control.hw_key &&
> >>  	    control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
> >>  		int hdrlen;
> >> -		u16 fc;
> >> +		__le16 fc;
> >> +		u16 length;
> >>  		u8 *pos;
> >>  
> >> -		fc = *(u16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> >> -		tx_hdr->length += WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
> >> +		fc = *(__le16 *)(skb->data + sizeof(*tx_hdr));
> > 
> > Is this going to work? sizeof(*tx_hdr), and the operation, will be in
> > the cpu's endianess, right?
> 
> I think this is correct. We first calculate a pointer to a __le16 value
> and then dereference that value to a __le16 variable.

Yes, you're right, I got totally confused for some reason, as I already
pointed out on my other email.  I completely missed the fact that we
were dealing with pointers here.  It seems like my brain works as that
of a Java programmer before my morning dose of caffeine :P

-- 
Cheers,
Luca.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Kalle Valo]

Hi John,

On 07/21/2010 06:31 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void wl1251_boot_set_ecpu_ctrl(struct wl1251 *wl, u32 flag)
>  int wl1251_boot_run_firmware(struct wl1251 *wl)
>  {
>  	int loop, ret;
> -	u32 chip_id, interrupt;
> +	u32 chip_id, acx_intr;

I don't get why you did this change. I don't object renaming the
variable, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind it.

Kalle

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Luciano Coelho]

On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:45 +0200, ext Kalle Valo wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> On 07/21/2010 06:31 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void wl1251_boot_set_ecpu_ctrl(struct wl1251 *wl, u32 flag)
> >  int wl1251_boot_run_firmware(struct wl1251 *wl)
> >  {
> >  	int loop, ret;
> > -	u32 chip_id, interrupt;
> > +	u32 chip_id, acx_intr;
> 
> I don't get why you did this change. I don't object renaming the
> variable, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind it.

Sparse complains that interrupt is shadowing the definition in hw_irq.h:

> drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:228:22: warning: symbol
> 'interrupt' shadows an earlier one
> /home/linville/git/wireless-next-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h:132:13: originally declared here

So, it's just a cosmetic change, I guess.


-- 
Cheers,
Luca.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Kalle Valo]

On 07/22/2010 10:52 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:45 +0200, ext Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 07/21/2010 06:31 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
>>> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void wl1251_boot_set_ecpu_ctrl(struct wl1251 *wl, u32 flag)
>>>  int wl1251_boot_run_firmware(struct wl1251 *wl)
>>>  {
>>>  	int loop, ret;
>>> -	u32 chip_id, interrupt;
>>> +	u32 chip_id, acx_intr;
>>
>> I don't get why you did this change. I don't object renaming the
>> variable, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Sparse complains that interrupt is shadowing the definition in hw_irq.h:
> 
>> drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/wl1251_boot.c:228:22: warning: symbol
>> 'interrupt' shadows an earlier one
>> /home/linville/git/wireless-next-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_irq.h:132:13: originally declared here
> 
> So, it's just a cosmetic change, I guess.

Ah, I was blind as usual. It makes all sense now, thanks.

Kalle

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Bob Copeland]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
>>> @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>      if (control->control.hw_key &&
>>>          control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
>>>              int hdrlen;
>>> -            u16 fc;
>>> +            __le16 fc;
>>> +            u16 length;
>>>              u8 *pos;
[...]
>>> +            length = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
>>> +            tx_hdr->length = cpu_to_le16(length);
>>
>> ...which is treated correctly here.
>
> This is different. Here we are adding something to a __le16 value, not
> calculating with pointers.

Just throwing in my 2 cents, unless there's some other reason to add the
length temporary, here you can just do:

    le16_add_cpu(&tx_hdr->length, WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE);

-- 
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[John W. Linville]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 08:04:02AM -0400, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
> >>> @@ -191,11 +191,13 @@ static int wl1251_tx_send_packet(struct wl1251 *wl, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>>      if (control->control.hw_key &&
> >>>          control->control.hw_key->alg == ALG_TKIP) {
> >>>              int hdrlen;
> >>> -            u16 fc;
> >>> +            __le16 fc;
> >>> +            u16 length;
> >>>              u8 *pos;
> [...]
> >>> +            length = le16_to_cpu(tx_hdr->length) + WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE;
> >>> +            tx_hdr->length = cpu_to_le16(length);
> >>
> >> ...which is treated correctly here.
> >
> > This is different. Here we are adding something to a __le16 value, not
> > calculating with pointers.
> 
> Just throwing in my 2 cents, unless there's some other reason to add the
> length temporary, here you can just do:
> 
>     le16_add_cpu(&tx_hdr->length, WL1251_TKIP_IV_SPACE);

Ah, thanks!  I thought there was something like that, but I couldn't remember. :-)

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[John W. Linville]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:45:10AM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 08:34 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:

> >> @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ static int wl1251_boot_upload_nvs(struct wl1251 *wl)
> >>  		val = (nvs_ptr[0] | (nvs_ptr[1] << 8)
> >>  		       | (nvs_ptr[2] << 16) | (nvs_ptr[3] << 24));
> >>  
> >> -		val = cpu_to_le32(val);
> >> +		val = (u32 __force) cpu_to_le32(val);
> > 
> > This will work, but such casts always make me a bit suspicious.  I think
> > this is fine for now
> 
> This line was very suspicious already from beginning, I can't remember
> why it was added and I don't see why it's needed here.

It certainly is a bit strange, and rather ugly as well.  I agree that
the write should probably just take the le32 instead, but I was more
interested in silencing sparse than in rewriting a driver for which
I have not hardware. :-)

I could drop that hunk for the time being?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [PATCH] wl1251: fix sparse-generated warnings

[Kalle Valo]

On 07/22/2010 03:21 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:45:10AM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> On 07/22/2010 08:34 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> 
>>>> @@ -467,7 +467,7 @@ static int wl1251_boot_upload_nvs(struct wl1251 *wl)
>>>>  		val = (nvs_ptr[0] | (nvs_ptr[1] << 8)
>>>>  		       | (nvs_ptr[2] << 16) | (nvs_ptr[3] << 24));
>>>>  
>>>> -		val = cpu_to_le32(val);
>>>> +		val = (u32 __force) cpu_to_le32(val);
>>>
>>> This will work, but such casts always make me a bit suspicious.  I think
>>> this is fine for now
>>
>> This line was very suspicious already from beginning, I can't remember
>> why it was added and I don't see why it's needed here.
> 
> It certainly is a bit strange, and rather ugly as well.  I agree that
> the write should probably just take the le32 instead, but I was more
> interested in silencing sparse than in rewriting a driver for which
> I have not hardware. :-)
> 
> I could drop that hunk for the time being?

Yeah, drop that hunk for now.  Better to create a separate patch which
removes that val = cpu_to_le32(val) line altogether.

Kalle