[PATCH] dma: use %pa to print dma_addr_t

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap at infradead.org> wrote:
> On 09/11/13 21:38, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> This resolves some warnings seen when building with CONFIG_ARM_LPAE=y, since
>> dma_addr_t might then be 64-bit:
>>
>>   drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c:1092:3: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-sdma.c:1166:3: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:579:3: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:579:3: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:593:4: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 9 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:603:4: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 9 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:930:2: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:930:2: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:960:2: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/imx-dma.c:960:2: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>>   drivers/dma/ipu/ipu_idmac.c:1235:2: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'dma_addr_t' [-Wformat=]
>
>
> I've been tempted to make similar patches, but CONFIG_PHYS_ADDR_T_64BIT
> and CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT are independent AFAICT,
> and %pa is for physical addresses, not necessarily DMA addresses.
>
> Am I confused?

So, I prepared just that (allocating %pA for dma_addr_t) last night,
but after looking around a bit more, it was unclear to me if it's ever
meaningful to separate the two of them at different word sizes.

Any >32bit-addressable machine will likely want 64-bit dma_addr_t as
well. The only architecture that doesn't seem to set
ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT based on PHYS_ADDR_T size is ARM, and I think
that should just be changed there as well.


-Olof