On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:45:08AM +0200, AbdAllah-MEZITI wrote: > This patch fixes the following sparse warning in fbtft/fbtft-io.c > > CHECK drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29: warning: incorrect type in assignment (different base types) > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29: expected unsigned long long [unsigned] [long] [long long] [usertype] <noident> > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29: got restricted __be64 [usertype] <noident> > > Signed-off-by: AbdAllah-MEZITI <abdallah.meziti.pro@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c > index d868405..8d436f9 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ int fbtft_write_spi_emulate_9(struct fbtft_par *par, void *buf, size_t len) > src++; > } > tmp |= ((*src & 0x0100) ? 1 : 0); > - *(u64 *)dst = cpu_to_be64(tmp); > + *(u64 *)dst = tmp; > dst += 8; > *dst++ = (u8)(*src++ & 0x00FF); > added++; Are you sure this is correct? It seems like you are now breaking the code to me... Please justify the logic change you made here. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
