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>
 <4ea1bf29-c353-6fcf-5248-bfee67d5c361@canonical.com>
 <c120ecf5-7202-9f1d-6e70-a99db2f5335f@gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <1cde1d43-f139-cb90-395e-8f8fceb41bce@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 10:04:21 -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: <c120ecf5-7202-9f1d-6e70-a99db2f5335f@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17/05/2021 09:47, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 17.05.2021 16:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет:
>>>>>  #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.
> 
> By 3 I meant BIT(31)|BIT(30). This bitfield is explicitly designated as
> a enum in the hardware documentation.

I understand it and using BIT() here does not mean someone has to set
both of them. BIT() is a helper pointing out that you want to toggle one
bit. It does not mean that it is allowed to do so always!

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Could you please show couple examples? The common practice today is to
> use FIELD_PREP helpers, but this driver was written before these helpers
> existed.


There are plenty of such examples so I guess it would be easier to ask
you to provide counter ones. Few IT for enum-like registers found within 2 minutes:

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/C/ident/MAX77620_CNFG_GPIO_INT_MASK
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/drivers/regulator/max77650-regulator.c#L18
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/drivers/regulator/tps6524x-regulator.c#L62
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/drivers/regulator/tps80031-regulator.c#L39
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/drivers/regulator/da9121-regulator.h#L200
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.13-rc2/source/drivers/regulator/da9121-regulator.h#L231

Best regards,
Krzysztof