Hi-- On 3/20/23 01:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Below is the list of build error/warning regressions/improvements in > v6.3-rc3[1] compared to v6.2[2]. > > Summarized: > - build errors: +9/-14 > - build warnings: +4/-1447 > > JFYI, when comparing v6.3-rc3[1] to v6.3-rc2[3], the summaries are: > - build errors: +0/-1 > - build warnings: +0/-0 > > Happy fixing! ;-) > > Thanks to the linux-next team for providing the build service. > > [1] http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/linus/head/e8d018dd0257f744ca50a729e3d042cf2ec9da65/ (all 152 configs) > [2] http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/linus/head/c9c3395d5e3dcc6daee66c6908354d47bf98cb0c/ (all 152 configs) > [3] http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/branch/linus/head/eeac8ede17557680855031c6f305ece2378af326/ (all 152 configs) > > > *** ERRORS *** > > 9 error regressions: > + /kisskb/src/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_mdss.c: error: case label does not reduce to an integer constant: => 300:2, 299:2, 296:2 Are these due to the sign bit being set after a shift? It looks that way since it is only reported for such values. >From the reports on the build server, it only happens when building with gcc5. I don't have the ability to build with gcc5 or I would test it. @Rob and other drm/msm people, what do you think about this? (or is this already fixed somewhere but not yet in linux-next?) Thanks. ----- diff -- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_hw_catalog.h @@ -19,9 +19,9 @@ */ #define MAX_BLOCKS 12 -#define DPU_HW_VER(MAJOR, MINOR, STEP) (((MAJOR & 0xF) << 28) |\ - ((MINOR & 0xFFF) << 16) |\ - (STEP & 0xFFFF)) +#define DPU_HW_VER(MAJOR, MINOR, STEP) ((((__u32)MAJOR & 0xF) << 28) |\ + (((__u32)MINOR & 0xFFF) << 16) |\ + ((__u32)STEP & 0xFFFF)) #define DPU_HW_MAJOR(rev) ((rev) >> 28) #define DPU_HW_MINOR(rev) (((rev) >> 16) & 0xFFF)
