On 03.02.2016 21:42, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Drivers should use %p for printing pointers instead of hardcoding them
> as hexadecimal integers. This patch fixes compilation warnings on 64bit
> architectures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_gsc.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_ipp.c | 32 ++++++++++++++---------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_rotator.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimc.c
> index c747824..8a4f4a0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_fimc.c
> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ static int fimc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto err_put_clk;
> }
>
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("id[%d]ippdrv[0x%x]\n", ctx->id, (int)ippdrv);
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("id[%d]ippdrv[%p]\n", ctx->id, ippdrv);
I don't oppose the patch itself but I have different concern. First -
probably you meant %pK because this is a writeable structure with
function pointers.
Second - why the ippdrv has to be printed? Is it useful for debugging?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
