Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
>> Mathieu Malaterre <ma...@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>> When neither CONFIG_ALTIVEC, nor CONFIG_VSX or CONFIG_PPC64 is defined, the
>>> array feature_properties is defined as an empty array, which in turn
>>> triggers the following warning (treated as error on W=1):
>>>
>>> CC arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.o
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c: In function ‘check_cpu_feature_properties’:
>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c:298:16: error: comparison of unsigned expression
>>> < 0 is always false [-Werror=type-limits]
>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>>> ^
>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>
>> Ugh, that's annoying.
>>
>> This seems to work?
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> index 4dffef947b8a..5215119e249c 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
>> @@ -291,11 +291,11 @@ static inline void identical_pvr_fixup(unsigned long
>> node)
>>
>> static void __init check_cpu_feature_properties(unsigned long node)
>> {
>> - unsigned long i;
>> struct feature_property *fp = feature_properties;
>> const __be32 *prop;
>> + int i;
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < (int)ARRAY_SIZE(feature_properties); ++i, ++fp) {
>> prop = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, fp->name, NULL);
>> if (prop && be32_to_cpup(prop) >= fp->min_value) {
>> cur_cpu_spec->cpu_features |= fp->cpu_feature;
>>
>
> Indeed that looks like the less invasive solution, I'll re-submit.
Thanks.
> Should I resubmit the entire patch series (21 indep patches) or
> re-submit only the 3 patches that were discussed (as part of a
> different series) ?
Just resubmit the ones that need changes. You can either send them as a
new series of 3, or post each as a reply to the original patch with v2
in the subject.
cheers
