Hi York,

On 15 July 2015 at 14:25, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:

On 07/15/2015 01:23 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:

...

Hello York,

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:02:07 -0700, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:

...

Simon,

Did it happen to you with this warning?

lib/fdtdec.c:108:4: warning: format ‘%x’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 3 has type ‘fdt_size_t’ [-Wformat=] debug("addr=%08lx, size=%08x\n", ^

I think when we have 64-bit physical address, as defined in fdtdec.h, this debug statement needs to be changed. I am thinking to change the typedef fdt_addr_t to phys_addr_t, and fdt_size_t to phys_size_t. What do you say?

I say there is no reason to change a type just because a printf format specifier is wrong for it when building for 64-bit.

Is there a rationale apart from the format specifier error?

If not, then What should be done is fix the specifier so that it is correct in both 32 and 64 bits.

Albert,

Let me send a RFC patch so you can comment on it.

I'm not sure how to do what Albert is suggesting.

Regards, Simon

Hello York,

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:32:30 -0700, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:

On 07/15/2015 01:29 PM, Simon Glass wrote:

...

Hi York,

On 15 July 2015 at 14:25, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:

...

On 07/15/2015 01:23 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:

...

Hello York,

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 13:02:07 -0700, York Sun yorksun@freescale.com wrote:

...

Simon,

Did it happen to you with this warning?

lib/fdtdec.c:108:4: warning: format ‘%x’ expects argument of type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 3 has type ‘fdt_size_t’ [-Wformat=] debug("addr=%08lx, size=%08x\n", ^

I think when we have 64-bit physical address, as defined in fdtdec.h, this debug statement needs to be changed. I am thinking to change the typedef fdt_addr_t to phys_addr_t, and fdt_size_t to phys_size_t. What do you say?

I say there is no reason to change a type just because a printf format specifier is wrong for it when building for 64-bit.

Is there a rationale apart from the format specifier error?

If not, then What should be done is fix the specifier so that it is correct in both 32 and 64 bits.

Albert,

Let me send a RFC patch so you can comment on it.

I'm not sure how to do what Albert is suggesting.

I only thought of two ways, using #ifdef or changing the type as my RFC patch suggests.

There's a third one: changing the form of the format specifier according to the target's definition of the variable -- you do that once somewhere in a common header file and you're all set up everywhere else.

See for instance how 'uint64_t' has such a format specifier PRIu64 #define-d in /usr/include/inttypes.h; whatever the definition of uint64_t, you can do a printf with it as follows:

uint64_t var; ... printf("Value of var is " PRIu64 ".\n", var);

(I learned this about a year ago while working on code that had to run on both a 64-bit Intel-core PC and a 32-bit ARM-core Beaglebone)

The same technique can be used here and I strongly prefer it oer changing the type of the variable, because changing the type affects the function of *all* code that uses the variable (thus potentially modifying the board behavior), whereas changing the format specifier affects *only* the printf() code (thus not changing the board behavior except for debug code which, supposedly, it only *fixes*.

York

Amicalement,