Although we have comments in intel_display_limits.h saying that the
code expects PIPE_A and TRANSCODER_A to be zero, it doesn't hurt to add
them as explicit base values for calculating the power domain offset in
POWER_DOMAIN_*() macros.
On the plus side, we have that this:
* Fixes a warning reported by kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
about doing arithmetic with two different enum types.
* Makes the code arguably more robust (in the unlikely event of those
bases becoming non-zero).
v2:
- Prefer using explicit base values instead of simply casting the
macro argument to int. (Ville)
- Update commit message to match the new approach (for reference, the
old message subject was "drm/i915/display: Use explicit cast in
POWER_DOMAIN_*() macros").
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502120809.XfmcqkBD-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
index a3a5c1be8bab..4ad35bd4b040 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.h
@@ -117,12 +117,12 @@ enum intel_display_power_domain {
POWER_DOMAIN_INVALID = POWER_DOMAIN_NUM,
};
-#define POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE(pipe) ((pipe) + POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE_A)
+#define POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE(pipe) ((pipe) - PIPE_A + POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE_A)
#define POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE_PANEL_FITTER(pipe) \
- ((pipe) + POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE_PANEL_FITTER_A)
+ ((pipe) - PIPE_A + POWER_DOMAIN_PIPE_PANEL_FITTER_A)
#define POWER_DOMAIN_TRANSCODER(tran) \
((tran) == TRANSCODER_EDP ? POWER_DOMAIN_TRANSCODER_EDP : \
- (tran) + POWER_DOMAIN_TRANSCODER_A)
+ (tran) - TRANSCODER_A + POWER_DOMAIN_TRANSCODER_A)
struct intel_power_domain_mask {
DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, POWER_DOMAIN_NUM);
--
2.48.1
