On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 06:19:07PM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> The i915_stolen_to_physical() function has 'unsigned long' as its
> return type but it returns the 'base' variable, which is of type
> 'u32'. The only place where this function is called assigns the
> returned value to dev_priv->mm.stolen_base, which is of type
> 'phys_addr_t'. The return value is actually a physical address and
> everything else in the stolen memory code seems to be using
> phys_addr_t, so fix i915_stolen_to_physical() to use phys_addr_t.
My fault for missing this in my recent round of switching to
phys_addr_t.
> @@ -228,11 +228,12 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>
> if (stolen[0].start != stolen[1].start ||
> stolen[0].end != stolen[1].end) {
> + phys_addr_t end = base + ggtt->stolen_size - 1;
> DRM_DEBUG_KMS("GTT within stolen memory at 0x%llx-0x%llx\n",
> (unsigned long long)ggtt_start,
> (unsigned long long)ggtt_end - 1);
> - DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Stolen memory adjusted to 0x%x-0x%x\n",
> - base, base + (u32)ggtt->stolen_size - 1);
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Stolen memory adjusted to %pa - %pa\n",
> + &base, &end);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -261,8 +262,9 @@ static unsigned long i915_stolen_to_physical(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> * range. Apparently this works.
> */
> if (r == NULL && !IS_GEN3(dev_priv)) {
> - DRM_ERROR("conflict detected with stolen region: [0x%08x - 0x%08x]\n",
> - base, base + (uint32_t)ggtt->stolen_size);
> + phys_addr_t end = base + ggtt->stolen_size;
Could make checkpatch happy by leaving a blank line here (and above). Maybe
overkill.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
