On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 08:45:08AM +0200, AbdAllah-MEZITI wrote:
> This patch fixes the following sparse warning in fbtft/fbtft-io.c
> 
>   CHECK   drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29: warning: incorrect type in assignment 
> (different base types)
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29:    expected unsigned long long 
> [unsigned] [long] [long long] [usertype] <noident>
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c:74:29:    got restricted __be64 [usertype] 
> <noident>
> 
> Signed-off-by: AbdAllah-MEZITI <abdallah.meziti....@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c 
> b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c
> index d868405..8d436f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-io.c
> @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ int fbtft_write_spi_emulate_9(struct fbtft_par *par, void 
> *buf, size_t len)
>                       src++;
>               }
>               tmp |= ((*src & 0x0100) ? 1 : 0);
> -             *(u64 *)dst = cpu_to_be64(tmp);
> +             *(u64 *)dst = tmp;
>               dst += 8;
>               *dst++ = (u8)(*src++ & 0x00FF);
>               added++;

Are you sure this is correct?  It seems like you are now breaking the
code to me...  Please justify the logic change you made here.

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Reply via email to