On Tuesday 15 April 2008, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Len Brown wrote: > > From: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c:499: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 4 has type ‘acpi_native_uint’ > > drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c:507: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 7 has type ‘acpi_native_uint’ > > > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c b/drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c > > index 5184278..bdef2f0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/dispatcher/dsobject.c > > @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ acpi_ds_build_internal_package_obj(struct acpi_walk_state *walk_state, > > union acpi_parse_object *parent; > > union acpi_operand_object *obj_desc = NULL; > > acpi_status status = AE_OK; > > - acpi_native_uint i; > > + u32 i; > > > why not just unsigned ? > > u16 index; > > u16 reference_count; No particular reason, u32 and unsigned are synonyms on the architectures we care about. Now that you point it out, i prefer unsigned, and will go with that. This is used as an index into the arrary of elements in a package, so 8-bits would probably work just as well. Certainly acpi_native_uint was overkill. -Len -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
