On 07/05/2017 07:00 AM, Thomas Gardner wrote:
The warning below is resolved by casting the LHS to __le32.
typec/tcpm.c:1019:49: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types)
typec/tcpm.c:1019:49: expected unsigned int [unsigned] [usertype] <noident>
typec/tcpm.c:1019:49: got restricted __le32 [usertype] <noident>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gardner <tmg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c b/drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c
index 20eb4ebcf8c3..7699bb27a4d9 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/typec/tcpm.c
@@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ static int tcpm_pd_svdm(struct tcpm_port *port, const __le32 *payload, int cnt,
if (port->data_role == TYPEC_DEVICE &&
port->nr_snk_vdo) {
for (i = 0; i < port->nr_snk_vdo; i++)
- response[i + 1]
+ ((__le32 *)response)[i + 1]
= cpu_to_le32(port->snk_vdo[i]);
rlen = port->nr_snk_vdo + 1;
}
I think this would just hide a number of at least potential endianness issues
in the driver. response[] should be of type __le32 instead, with everything
that comes with it.
Which makes me wonder, since I don't see any of those warnings - what does it take
to see them ?
Guenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
