On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Martin K. Petersen
<martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Chaitra,
>
>>> for (i = 0; i < ioc->combined_reply_index_count; i++) {
>>> - ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] = (resource_size_t
>> *)
>>> - ((u8 *)&ioc->chip->Doorbell +
>>> + ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] =
>>> + (volatile void __iomem *)
>>> + ((u8 __force *)&ioc->chip->Doorbell +
>>> MPI25_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET +
>>> (i *
>> MPT3_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_REG_OFFSET));
>>
>> Why the double type casts? You've already changed replyPostRegisterIndex
>> to be 'volatile void __iomem **' in the header file. So why not:
>>
>> ioc->replyPostRegisterIndex[i] =
>> &ioc->chip->Doorbell +
>> MPI25_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_OFFSET +
>> i * MPT3_SUP_REPLY_POST_HOST_INDEX_REG_OFFSET;
>
> You didn't address my question about why the type casts were required in
> the first place? I get cautious when I see nested casting...
>
Martin,
In v3 patch,we have removed this nested casting and just used (u8
__force) to fix the sparse warning.
~ Sreekanth
>> Also looks like ioc->reply_post_host_index handling a few lines further
>> down could lose the type casts.
>
> See above.
>
> --
> Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
