On 1 December 2015 21:39:55 GMT+00:00, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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). Hmm thanks for the reference. Maybe using GENMASK(31, 24)... Will be tomorrow evening before I can turn out a patch. Jonathan > >- 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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- 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
