On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:48:04 -0800 Zaid Alali <zaidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch fixes the kernel test robot warning reported here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202410241620.oApALow5-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Zaid Alali <zaidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Follow up below. > --- > drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c | 104 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c > index 04731a5b01fa..b40ed44c4983 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/einj-core.c > @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(einj_mutex); > */ > bool einj_initialized __ro_after_init; > > -static void *einj_param; > +static void __iomem *einj_param; > > static void einj_exec_ctx_init(struct apei_exec_context *ctx) > { > @@ -214,21 +214,23 @@ static void check_vendor_extension(u64 paddr, > struct set_error_type_with_address *v5param) > { > int offset = v5param->vendor_extension; > - struct vendor_error_type_extension *v; > + struct vendor_error_type_extension v; > + void __iomem *p; > u32 sbdf; > > if (!offset) > return; > - v = acpi_os_map_iomem(paddr + offset, sizeof(*v)); > - if (!v) > + p = acpi_os_map_iomem(paddr + offset, sizeof(v)); > + if (!p) > return; > - get_oem_vendor_struct(paddr, offset, v); > - sbdf = v->pcie_sbdf; > + memcpy_fromio(&v, p, sizeof(v)); > + get_oem_vendor_struct(paddr, offset, &v); > + sbdf = v.pcie_sbdf; > sprintf(vendor_dev, "%x:%x:%x.%x vendor_id=%x device_id=%x rev_id=%x\n", > sbdf >> 24, (sbdf >> 16) & 0xff, > (sbdf >> 11) & 0x1f, (sbdf >> 8) & 0x7, > - v->vendor_id, v->device_id, v->rev_id); > - acpi_os_unmap_iomem(v, sizeof(*v)); > + v.vendor_id, v.device_id, v.rev_id); > + acpi_os_unmap_iomem(p, sizeof(v)); > } > > static void *einj_get_parameter_address(void) Doesn't this return type want the __iomem marking as well? > @@ -252,26 +254,30 @@ static void *einj_get_parameter_address(void) > entry++;
