From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934655AbdDXRAQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59382 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1760796AbdDXRAK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:00:10 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:00:09 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Grant Grundler <grundler@chromium.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>, Michael Davidson <md@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add ASM modifier for xN register operands
Message-ID: <20170424170009.GT12323@arm.com>
References: <20170420183053.718-1-mka@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170420183053.718-1-mka@chromium.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Matthias,

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:30:53AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Many inline assembly statements don't include the 'x' modifier when
> using xN registers as operands. This is perfectly valid, however it
> causes clang to raise warnings like this:
> 
> warning: value size does not match register size specified by the
>   constraint and modifier [-Wasm-operand-widths]
> ...
> arch/arm64/include/asm/barrier.h:62:23: note: expanded from macro
>   '__smp_store_release'
>     asm volatile ("stlr %1, %0"

If I understand this correctly, then the warning is emitted when we pass
in a value smaller than 64-bit, but refer to %<n> without a modifier
in the inline asm.

However, if that's the case then I don't understand why:

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h
> index 0c00c87bb9dd..021e1733da0c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/io.h
> @@ -39,33 +39,33 @@
>  #define __raw_writeb __raw_writeb
>  static inline void __raw_writeb(u8 val, volatile void __iomem *addr)
>  {
> -	asm volatile("strb %w0, [%1]" : : "rZ" (val), "r" (addr));
> +	asm volatile("strb %w0, [%x1]" : : "rZ" (val), "r" (addr));

is necessary. addr is a pointer type, so is 64-bit.

Given that the scattergun nature of this patch implies that you've been
fixing the places where warnings are reported, then I'm confused as to
why a warning is generated for the case above.

What am I missing?

Will