[PATCH] dma: use %pa to print dma_addr_t

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Olof Johansson <olof at lixom.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

Xen also plays games here and has a 32-bit physical address with
64-bit dma.  So I think we need something like Joe's patch.

--
Dan