| Message ID | 1381876887-14288-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 05:41:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > commit 39ac34473f3c96e77cbe03a49141771ed1639486 ("cmd_mtdparts: use 64 > bits for flash size, partition size & offset") introduced warnings > in a couple places due to printf formats or pointer casting. > > This patch fixes the warnings pointed out here: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164981.html > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > Cc: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > Cc: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
Hi Scott, On 16.10.2013 00:41, Scott Wood wrote: > commit 39ac34473f3c96e77cbe03a49141771ed1639486 ("cmd_mtdparts: use 64 > bits for flash size, partition size & offset") introduced warnings > in a couple places due to printf formats or pointer casting. > > This patch fixes the warnings pointed out here: > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164981.html > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > Cc: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> > Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > Cc: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > --- > Alternatively, given the imminent release, perhaps all but the first > patch of my recent NAND pull request should be reverted. The first > patch was a regression fix, but on a second look the remaining patches > look more like enabling a new feature (and I didn't look too closely at > the ubi patches because Stefan had acked them and asked me to apply; > patch 4 is clearly not a bugfix). Yes. But the first version of this patchset was posted before the merge window was closed (on the 6th of August). So they should be integrated in this release. That was my reasoning. Thanks, Stefan
On 16/10/13 07:08, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 16.10.2013 00:41, Scott Wood wrote: >> commit 39ac34473f3c96e77cbe03a49141771ed1639486 ("cmd_mtdparts: use 64 >> bits for flash size, partition size & offset") introduced warnings >> in a couple places due to printf formats or pointer casting. >> >> This patch fixes the warnings pointed out here: >> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164981.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> >> Cc: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> >> Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> >> Cc: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> >> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> > > Acked-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> > >> --- >> Alternatively, given the imminent release, perhaps all but the first >> patch of my recent NAND pull request should be reverted. The first >> patch was a regression fix, but on a second look the remaining patches >> look more like enabling a new feature (and I didn't look too closely at >> the ubi patches because Stefan had acked them and asked me to apply; >> patch 4 is clearly not a bugfix). > > Yes. But the first version of this patchset was posted before the merge > window was closed (on the 6th of August). So they should be integrated > in this release. That was my reasoning. > > Thanks, > Stefan > Thanks for catching & fixing this guys :) I'll make sure to build all boards when touching non-board-specific code in future! Paul
diff --git a/common/fdt_support.c b/common/fdt_support.c index b034c98..1f0d8f5 100644 --- a/common/fdt_support.c +++ b/common/fdt_support.c @@ -766,11 +766,11 @@ int fdt_node_set_part_info(void *blob, int parent_offset, part = list_entry(pentry, struct part_info, link); - debug("%2d: %-20s0x%08x\t0x%08x\t%d\n", + debug("%2d: %-20s0x%08llx\t0x%08llx\t%d\n", part_num, part->name, part->size, part->offset, part->mask_flags); - sprintf(buf, "partition@%x", part->offset); + sprintf(buf, "partition@%llx", part->offset); add_sub: ret = fdt_add_subnode(blob, parent_offset, buf); if (ret == -FDT_ERR_NOSPACE) { diff --git a/fs/cramfs/cramfs.c b/fs/cramfs/cramfs.c index e578a1e..fd8e4ef 100644 --- a/fs/cramfs/cramfs.c +++ b/fs/cramfs/cramfs.c @@ -43,9 +43,10 @@ struct cramfs_super super; * device address space offset, so we need to shift it by a device start address. */ #if !defined(CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH) extern flash_info_t flash_info[]; -#define PART_OFFSET(x) (x->offset + flash_info[x->dev->id->num].start[0]) +#define PART_OFFSET(x) ((ulong)x->offset + \ + flash_info[x->dev->id->num].start[0]) #else -#define PART_OFFSET(x) (x->offset) +#define PART_OFFSET(x) ((ulong)x->offset) #endif static int cramfs_read_super (struct part_info *info)
commit 39ac34473f3c96e77cbe03a49141771ed1639486 ("cmd_mtdparts: use 64 bits for flash size, partition size & offset") introduced warnings in a couple places due to printf formats or pointer casting. This patch fixes the warnings pointed out here: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164981.html Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> Cc: York Sun <yorksun@freescale.com> Cc: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> Cc: Paul Burton <paul.burton@imgtec.com> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com> --- Alternatively, given the imminent release, perhaps all but the first patch of my recent NAND pull request should be reverted. The first patch was a regression fix, but on a second look the remaining patches look more like enabling a new feature (and I didn't look too closely at the ubi patches because Stefan had acked them and asked me to apply; patch 4 is clearly not a bugfix). I'm not sure why I didn't catch these warnings as I did run a makeall on arm and ppc. The only thing I can guess is that I forgot to check the ppc results, or I missed them among other pre-existing warnings such as the "AltiVec not supported in this target" warnings I get from 86xx builds. --- common/fdt_support.c | 4 ++-- fs/cramfs/cramfs.c | 5 +++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)