On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:44:14PM +0200, Emil Goode wrote:
> The compiler is complaining with the following errors:
> 
> drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c:94:48: error:
>       passing argument 3 of ‘dma_alloc_wc’ from incompatible pointer type
>       [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
> 
> drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c:113:48: error:
>       passing argument 3 of ‘dma_alloc_wc’ from incompatible pointer type
>       [-Werror=incompatible-pointer-types]
> 
> The expected pointer type of the third argument to dma_alloc_wc() is
> dma_addr_t but phys_addr_t is passed. Fix this by adding casts to the
> expected pointer type.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Emil Goode <emil....@goode.io>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c
> index 28541b280739..5e8b321a751e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/cdma.c
> @@ -91,8 +91,8 @@ static int host1x_pushbuffer_init(struct push_buffer *pb)
>  
>               size = iova_align(&host1x->iova, size);
>  
> -             pb->mapped = dma_alloc_wc(host1x->dev, size, &pb->phys,
> -                                       GFP_KERNEL);
> +             pb->mapped = dma_alloc_wc(host1x->dev, size,
> +                                       (dma_addr_t *)&pb->phys, GFP_KERNEL);
>               if (!pb->mapped)
>                       return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -110,8 +110,8 @@ static int host1x_pushbuffer_init(struct push_buffer *pb)
>               if (err)
>                       goto iommu_free_iova;
>       } else {
> -             pb->mapped = dma_alloc_wc(host1x->dev, size, &pb->phys,
> -                                       GFP_KERNEL);
> +             pb->mapped = dma_alloc_wc(host1x->dev, size,
> +                                       (dma_addr_t *)&pb->phys, GFP_KERNEL);
>               if (!pb->mapped)
>                       return -ENOMEM;
>  

This doesn't seem right. There's no guarantee that phys_addr_t and
dma_addr_t will be compatible, so the above isn't always correct. Also,
I don't see a need for pb->phys to ever be phys_addr_t. It's allocated
through dma_alloc_wc() exclusively, so it should just be dma_addr_t.

Note that the !pb->phys check in host1x_pushbuffer_destroy() becomes
technically wrong if pb->phys is dma_addr_t (0 is a perfectly valid
value for dma_addr_t), so make sure to flip that to !pb->mapped instead.
pb->mapped and pb->phys are always set in tandem, and checking mapped
for non-NULL is the right check to test whether the pair is valid or
not.

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Reply via email to