On 02/19/2016 09:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 18 February 2016 14:46:16 Murali Karicheri wrote: >> Rename the helpers to match with the updated dma desc field sw_data. >> >> Cc: Wingman Kwok <w-kw...@ti.com> >> Cc: Mugunthan V N <mugunthan...@ti.com> >> CC: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> >> CC: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> >> CC: David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> >> Signed-off-by: Murali Karicheri <m-kariche...@ti.com> >> --- >> v1 - new patch to based on discussion at >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/580860/ >> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c | 40 >> +++++++++++++++++++----------------- >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c >> index 0b26e52..1d07cca 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/netcp_core.c >> @@ -117,10 +117,11 @@ static void get_pkt_info(dma_addr_t *buff, u32 >> *buff_len, dma_addr_t *ndesc, >> *ndesc = le32_to_cpu(desc->next_desc); >> } >> >> -static void get_pad_info(u32 *pad0, u32 *pad1, struct knav_dma_desc *desc) >> +static void get_sw_data(u32 *data0, u32 *data1, struct knav_dma_desc *desc) >> { >> - *pad0 = le32_to_cpu(desc->pad[0]); >> - *pad1 = le32_to_cpu(desc->pad[1]); >> + /* No Endian conversion needed as this data is untouched by hw */ >> + *data0 = desc->sw_data[0]; >> + *data1 = desc->sw_data[1]; >> } > > Actually this needs to be done together with patch 2, or you > get a build failure if this one is not yet applied. I have realized that. Only reason was that it belongs to drivers/soc which is merged through Santosh. I will combine it and re-send. > >> @@ -1174,7 +1176,7 @@ static int netcp_tx_submit_skb(struct netcp_intf >> *netcp, >> } >> >> set_words(&tmp, 1, &desc->packet_info); >> - set_words((u32 *)&skb, 1, &desc->pad[0]); >> + set_words((u32 *)&skb, 1, &desc->sw_data[0]); >> >> if (tx_pipe->flags & SWITCH_TO_PORT_IN_TAGINFO) { >> tmp = tx_pipe->switch_to_port; >> > > This seems to introduce a bug, and should produce an "sparse" warning > about a u32 being passed into a function expecting a __le32. > Ahah, this was changed recently. I will take a look.
> The other bug I originally tried to address here is the way an indirect > pointer is converted to a 'u32' pointer, which won't work on 64-bit > architectures when pointers are wider than u32. Maybe at least put a > comment here that this is a known deficiency. > Ok. Let me check and respond. > Arnd > -- Murali Karicheri Linux Kernel, Keystone
