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:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.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>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1d80ee0f-de4c-24d0-154f-20841874bf20@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 16:35:47 +0300
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: <936cfc7d-737e-a582-ea60-ad2ba5b4ca72@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

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.