cpu/x86/smm: Fix uintptr_t type mismatches in print statements

The 64-bit compiler x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc-10 aborts the build with the
format warning below:

        CC         ramstage/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.o
    src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c: In function 'smm_create_map':
    src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c:146:19: error: format '%zx' expects argument of type 'size_t', but argument 3 has type 'uintptr_t' {aka 'long unsigned int'} [-Werror=format=]
      146 |     "    smbase %zx  entry %zx\n",
          |                 ~~^
          |                   |
          |                   unsigned int
          |                 %lx
      147 |     cpus[i].smbase, cpus[i].entry);
          |     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          |            |
          |            uintptr_t {aka long unsigned int}

In coreboot `uintptr_t` is defined in `src/include/stdint.h`:

     typedef unsigned long      uintptr_t;

As `size_t` is defined as `long unsigned int` in i386-elf (32-bit), the
length modifier `z` matches there. With x86_64-elf/x86_64-linux-gnu
(64-bit) and `-m32` `size_t` is defined as `unsigned int` resulting in a
type mismatch. Normally, `PRIxPTR` would need to be used as a length
modifier, but as coreboot always defines `uintptr_t` to `unsigned long`
(and in `src/include/inttypes.h` also defines `PRIxPTR` as `"lx"`), use
the length modifier `l` to make the code more readable.

Found-by: x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110
Fixes: afb7a814 ("cpu/x86/smm: Introduce SMM module loader version 2")
Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Change-Id: I32bff397c8a033fe34390e6c1a7dfe773707a4e8
Reviewed-on: https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/54341
Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) <no-reply@coreboot.org>
Reviewed-by: Werner Zeh <werner.zeh@siemens.com>

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions

diff --git a/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c b/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c
index e3b84179f4..6d999a7290 100644
--- a/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c
+++ b/src/cpu/x86/smm/smm_module_loader.c
@@ -143,10 +143,10 @@ static int smm_create_map(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus,
 		for (i = 0; i < num_cpus; i++) {
 			printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "CPU 0x%x\n", i);
 			printk(BIOS_DEBUG,
-				"    smbase %zx  entry %zx\n",
+				"    smbase %lx  entry %lx\n",
 				cpus[i].smbase, cpus[i].entry);
 			printk(BIOS_DEBUG,
-				"           ss_start %zx  code_end %zx\n",
+				"           ss_start %lx  code_end %lx\n",
 				cpus[i].ss_start, cpus[i].code_end);
 			seg_count++;
 			if (seg_count >= cpus_in_segment) {
@@ -217,13 +217,13 @@ static int smm_place_entry_code(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus,
 	if (cpus[num_cpus].active) {
 		if (cpus[num_cpus - 1].smbase + SMM_ENTRY_OFFSET < stack_top) {
 			printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: stack encroachment\n", __func__);
-				printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: smbase %zx, stack_top %lx\n",
+				printk(BIOS_ERR, "%s: smbase %lx, stack_top %lx\n",
 				       __func__, cpus[num_cpus].smbase, stack_top);
 				return 0;
 		}
 	}
 
-	printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s: smbase %zx, stack_top %lx\n",
+	printk(BIOS_INFO, "%s: smbase %lx, stack_top %lx\n",
 		__func__, cpus[num_cpus-1].smbase, stack_top);
 
 	/* start at 1, the first CPU stub code is already there */
@@ -231,9 +231,9 @@ static int smm_place_entry_code(uintptr_t smbase, unsigned int num_cpus,
 	for (i = 1; i < num_cpus; i++) {
 		memcpy((int *)cpus[i].code_start, (int *)cpus[0].code_start, size);
 		printk(BIOS_DEBUG,
-			"SMM Module: placing smm entry code at %zx,  cpu # 0x%x\n",
+			"SMM Module: placing smm entry code at %lx,  cpu # 0x%x\n",
 			cpus[i].code_start, i);
-		printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s: copying from %zx to %zx 0x%x bytes\n",
+		printk(BIOS_DEBUG, "%s: copying from %lx to %lx 0x%x bytes\n",
 			__func__, cpus[0].code_start, cpus[i].code_start, size);
 	}
 	return 1;