On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 03:54:44 +0100, PC Liao wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 17:02 +0800, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 09:00:50 +0100, > > PC Liao wrote: > > > > > > @@ -603,7 +606,10 @@ static int mtk_afe_dais_hw_params(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, > > > if (ret < 0) > > > return ret; > > > > > > - memif->phys_buf_addr = substream->runtime->dma_addr; > > > + if (sizeof(dma_addr_t) > 4) > > > + msb_at_bit33 = (substream->runtime->dma_addr & 0x100000000) ? 1 : 0; > > > > Better to put a proper suffix for the constant over 32bit. > > > > Or use upper_32_bits(). Then sizeof() check can be omitted, as the > > compiler should be smart enough to know it beforehand. > > > > > > Takashi > > > Hi Takashi, > > Thanks for your comment. > I change as below: > @@ -606,10 +606,8 @@ static int mtk_afe_dais_hw_params(struct > snd_pcm_substream > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - if (sizeof(dma_addr_t) > 4) > - msb_at_bit33 = (substream->runtime->dma_addr & > 0x100000000) ? 1 > - > - memif->phys_buf_addr = substream->runtime->dma_addr & > 0xffffffff; > + msb_at_bit33 = upper_32_bits(substream->runtime->dma_addr) ? 1 : > 0; > + memif->phys_buf_addr = > lower_32_bits(substream->runtime->dma_addr); > > > Dose this change follow your idea? Yes. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
