On Fri, 2017-09-08 at 15:24 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 12:29:35PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > @@ -1292,72 +1292,71 @@ void intel_uncore_fini(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > intel_uncore_forcewake_reset(dev_priv, false);
> > }
> >
> > -#define GEN_RANGE(l, h) GENMASK((h) - 1, (l) - 1)
> > -
> > -static const struct register_whitelist {
> > - i915_reg_t offset_ldw, offset_udw;
> > - uint32_t size;
> > - /* supported gens, 0x10 for 4, 0x30 for 4 and 5, etc. */
> > - uint32_t gen_bitmask;
> > -} whitelist[] = {
> > - { .offset_ldw = RING_TIMESTAMP(RENDER_RING_BASE),
> > - .offset_udw = RING_TIMESTAMP_UDW(RENDER_RING_BASE),
> > - .size = 8, .gen_bitmask = GEN_RANGE(4, 10) },
> > -};
> > +static const struct reg_whitelist {
> > + i915_reg_t offset_ldw;
> > + i915_reg_t offset_udw;
> > + unsigned long gen_mask;
>
> 'long' seems like a bad type for something like this. Changes size on 32
> vs 64 bit. Also we could make do with 16 bits for now, though with
> the single whitelist entry this only has a small impact.
It's actually the type GCC wants because GENMASK is used internally to
produce the mask, otherwise it complained. We should likely use
unsigned long in dev_priv too, with a BUILD_BUG_ON(max_gen >
BITS_PER_LONG) check.
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
