Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] memory: tegra124-emc: Fix compilation warnings on
 64bit platforms
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210516161214.4693-1-digetx@gmail.com>
 <20210516161214.4693-4-digetx@gmail.com>
 <936cfc7d-737e-a582-ea60-ad2ba5b4ca72@canonical.com>
 <1d80ee0f-de4c-24d0-154f-20841874bf20@gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <4ea1bf29-c353-6fcf-5248-bfee67d5c361@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 09:39:45 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1d80ee0f-de4c-24d0-154f-20841874bf20@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17/05/2021 09:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 17.05.2021 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет:
>> On 16/05/2021 12:12, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> Fix compilation warning on 64bit platforms caused by implicit promotion
>>> of 32bit signed integer to a 64bit unsigned value which happens after
>>> enabling compile-testing of the driver.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>>> index 5699d909abc2..c9eb948cf4df 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>>> @@ -272,8 +272,8 @@
>>>  #define EMC_PUTERM_ADJ				0x574
>>>  
>>>  #define DRAM_DEV_SEL_ALL			0
>>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0				(2 << 30)
>>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1				(1 << 30)
>>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0				(2u << 30)
>>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1				(1u << 30)
>>
>> Why not using BIT()? This would make even this 2<<30 less awkard...
> 
> The bitfield 31:30 is a enum, 3 is a wrong value. Formally it's
> incorrect to use the BIT() macro here.

Why "3"? BIT(31) is the same as 2<<30. It's common to use BIT for
register fields which do not accept all possible values. Now you
basically reimplement BIT() which is error-prone.


Best regards,
Krzysztof