spi: stm32: update dev_dbg() print format for SPI params

With the introduction of the 'include/uapi/linux/spi/spi.h' header, the
type of the macros are enforced to 'unsigned long int' via the _BITUL()
macro.

This causes some -Wformat warnings in the spi-stm32 driver.
This patch changes the printf() specifiers from '%d' to '%lu' to
accommodate for this change.

Fixes: f7005142dace ("spi: uapi: unify SPI modes into a single spi.h header")
Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-stm32.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 10:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean
<alexandru.ardelean@analog.com> wrote:
>
> With the introduction of the 'include/uapi/linux/spi/spi.h' header, the
> type of the macros are enforced to 'unsigned long int' via the _BITUL()
> macro.
>
> This causes some -Wformat warnings in the spi-stm32 driver.
> This patch changes the printf() specifiers from '%d' to '%lu' to
> accommodate for this change.
>
> Fixes: f7005142dace ("spi: uapi: unify SPI modes into a single spi.h header")
> Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>

LKP also reported this before.

...

> -       dev_dbg(spi->dev, "cpol=%d cpha=%d lsb_first=%d cs_high=%d\n",
> +       dev_dbg(spi->dev, "cpol=%lu cpha=%lu lsb_first=%lu cs_high=%lu\n",
>                 spi_dev->mode & SPI_CPOL,
>                 spi_dev->mode & SPI_CPHA,
>                 spi_dev->mode & SPI_LSB_FIRST,

Wouldn't the output be a bit awful with all these?

I think the proper fix is to add !! to each bit mask.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:59:23 +0200, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> With the introduction of the 'include/uapi/linux/spi/spi.h' header, the

> type of the macros are enforced to 'unsigned long int' via the _BITUL()

> macro.

> 

> This causes some -Wformat warnings in the spi-stm32 driver.

> This patch changes the printf() specifiers from '%d' to '%lu' to

> accommodate for this change.


Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: stm32: update dev_dbg() print format for SPI params
      commit: 8b835da61774d4482864bc081dfb428104842ad3

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:31:03 +0200, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> With the introduction of the 'include/uapi/linux/spi/spi.h' header, the

> type of the macros are enforced to 'unsigned long int' via the _BITUL()

> macro.

> 

> This causes some -Wformat warnings in the spi-stm32 driver.

> This patch adds a double-negation operator to the bit-masks. Essentially,

> the important values for debugging are 0 or 1, while masking them directly

> would show 0 or BIT(x) values.

> This way, the type of the arguments are automatically re-cast.


Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: stm32: update dev_dbg() print format for SPI params
      commit: 8b835da61774d4482864bc081dfb428104842ad3

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark