On 1/8/2025 1:17 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On 08/01/2025 08:43, Dikshita Agarwal wrote: >> >> >> On 1/7/2025 7:27 PM, Nicolas Dufresne wrote: >>> Le lundi 23 décembre 2024 à 16:21 +0530, Dikshita Agarwal a écrit : >>>> >>>> On 12/23/2024 4:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>> Em Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:21:49 +0530 >>>>> Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> + .dma_mask = GENMASK(31, 29) - 1, >>>>> >>>>> Setting a mask to GENMASK() - 1 sounds weird. Is it really what you want? >>>>> I so, why? >>>>> >>>> Hi Mauro, >>>> >>>> the value of this dma mask should be 0xe0000000 -1. >>>> >>>> The background for the same is, 0xe0000000 onward memory space is allocated >>>> for IO register space so we are restricting the driver buffer allocations >>>> to 0xe0000000 - 1. >>>> >>>> Based on the comments received in the past, we are using GENMASK to >>>> generate 0xe0000000. >>>> >>>> Does this answer your query or I missed something? >>> >>> I'm not sure it will do what you want. (0xe0000000 -1) matches ~BIT(29). Perhaps >>> you wanted to use ~0xe0000000. >>> >> value of dma mask is coming as expected with GENMASK(31, 29) - 1 >> >> qcom-iris aa00000.video-codec: dma_mask DFFFFFFF (0xe0000000 -1) > > Isn't this just the equivalent of GENMASK(28, 0)? Can't you use that? > > It's much easier to understand than GENMASK()-1. Sure, I can use either ~GENMASK(29, 29) or ~BIT(29), Please let me know which would be better? Thanks, Dikshita > > Regards, > > Hans > >> >> Thanks, >> Dikshita >>> Nicolas >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Dikshita >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Mauro >>> > >
