On 12/01/2015 09:54 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 01/12/15 17:13, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 02:31:54PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> When this one and the fixes set I sent a few minutes ago merge you curiously >>> get an issue with drivers/staging/iio/Kconfig. The right resolution is >>> to dump all the dummy driver stuff. >>> >>> All the other changes related to that move and various automerge stuff that >>> occurs looks fine to me. >> >> Thanks for the merge info, that helped. >> >> But, I'm now getting these build warnings that I don't think we had >> before: >> >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c: In function ‘mxs_lradc_complete_touch_event’: >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:325:5: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] >> (((x) << LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_OFFSET) & \ >> ^ >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:734:7: note: in expansion of macro ‘LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER’ >> LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER(1 << TOUCHSCREEN_VCHANNEL1) | >> ^ >> LD [M] drivers/staging/iio/accel/adis16201.o >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c: In function ‘mxs_lradc_buffer_preenable’: >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:322:42: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] >> #define LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK (0xff << 24) >> ^ >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:1308:29: note: in expansion of macro ‘LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK’ >> mxs_lradc_reg_clear(lradc, LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK | >> ^ >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c: In function ‘mxs_lradc_buffer_postdisable’: >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:322:42: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] >> #define LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK (0xff << 24) >> ^ >> drivers/staging/iio/adc/mxs-lradc.c:1327:29: note: in expansion of macro ‘LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK’ >> mxs_lradc_reg_clear(lradc, LRADC_DELAY_TRIGGER_LRADCS_MASK | >> ^ >> >> Can you fix those up? >> >> thanks, >> >> greg k-h > oops. I'd forgotten I got that one a while ago and meant to check what was causing > it - sorry about that - initially assumed it was just a warning that had gotten > turned on in the autobuilder. > > After a lot of digging can be boiled down to statements > that end up as > > (0xff << 24) | (1UL << 20) > Now I'm not entirely sure why it is unhappy with that. > (0xffUL << 24) | (1UL << 20) is and (0xff << 24) | (1 << 20) - the original - is fine > as well. > > The oddity to my mind is that 0xff is supposed to be fitted to the smallest possible > unsigned type (as it's in hex) so why is this happening? The type is int, if the value fits into int, see http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/WG14/www/docs/n1570.pdf#page=82 I guess the right thing to do is to use UL, even though it is a bit ugly. (Or write 0xff000000 instead of 0xff << 24). - Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
