On 22/04/2024 10:07, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>
>
> Hi Michal,
>
>>> + for ( cells = reg, i = 0; cells < reg + nr_cells; i++, cells +=
>>> reg_size )
>>> + {
>>> + u64 start = dt_read_number(cells, addrcells);
>> We should no longer use Linux derived types like u64. Use uint64_t.
>>
>>> + u64 size = dt_read_number(cells + addrcells, sizecells);
>>> +
>>> + dt_dprintk(" Bank %d: %#"PRIx64"->%#"PRIx64"\n",
>>> + i, start, start + size);
>> i is unsigned so the correct format specifier should be %u
>
> Right, should have been more careful when copying the code from above
>
>>>
>>> +void __init shm_mem_node_fill_reg_range(const struct kernel_info *kinfo,
>>> + __be32 *reg, int *nr_cells,
>>> + int addrcells, int sizecells)
>>> +{
>>> + const struct membanks *mem = &kinfo->shm_mem.common;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> + __be32 *cells;
>>> +
>>> + BUG_ON(!nr_cells || !reg);
>>> +
>>> + cells = ®[*nr_cells];
>>> + for ( i = 0; i < mem->nr_banks; i++ )
>>> + {
>>> + u64 start = mem->bank[i].start;
>> ditto
>
> Will fix, here paddr_t should be ok isn’t it?
yes
>
>>
>> Rest LGTM:
>> Reviewed-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com>
>
> Thanks, I will send the next one shortly.
I don't think there is a need to respin the whole series just for these fixes.
You should wait for the committers opinion.
~Michal