On 24 November 2017 at 16:54, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Quoting Matthew Auld (2017-11-24 16:42:57) >> Keeps things consistent now that we make use of struct resource. This >> should keep us covered in case we ever get huge amounts of stolen >> memory. >> >> v2: bunch of missing conversions (Chris) >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> index a05e2b92c02c..248d18a255d8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >> @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static int i915_gem_object_info(struct seq_file *m, void *data) >> dpy_count, dpy_size); >> >> seq_printf(m, "%llu [%llu] gtt total\n", >> - ggtt->base.total, ggtt->mappable_size); >> + ggtt->base.total, (u64)ggtt->mappable_size); > > resource_size_t uses %pa (same as phys_addr_t), which you used below. > Did it not work with seq_printf? It does work, I just didn't fancy having a mix of decimal-integers with hexadecimal-integers when printing. Or don't we care? _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
