On 1/17/23 11:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 19:24, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 1/17/23 09:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2023 18:24:44+0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> On 32-bit architectures with 64-bit resource_size_t, sp_rtc_probe()
>>>> causes a compiler warning:
>>>>
>>>> drivers/rtc/rtc-sunplus.c: In function 'sp_rtc_probe':
>>>> drivers/rtc/rtc-sunplus.c:243:33: error: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 4 has type 'resource_size_t' {aka 'long long unsigned int'} [-Werror=format=]
>>>> 243 | dev_dbg(&plat_dev->dev, "res = 0x%x, reg_base = 0x%lx\n",
>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> The best way to print a resource is the special %pR format string,
>>>> and similarly to print a pointer we can use %p and avoid the cast.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I got this one this morning, which one is more correct? :)
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230117054232.24023-1-rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Both are equally correct, it's just a preference.
>
>> I prefer my handling of res->start and Arnd's no-cast handling of reg_base.
>> IMO using "%pR" prints too much info, but that's more up to the file's author
>> or maintainer...
>
> Right, I could have equally well picked the %pap version, and just
> went for brevity in the source. It's only pr_debug(), so very few
> users are going to actually see the output.
Alexandre, sounds like you should just go with Arnd's patch.
--
~Randy
