Hi Andy,
Quoting Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
<garsilva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Add suffix ULL to constant 1000 in order to give the compiler complete
information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice that this
constant is used in a context that expects an expression of type
u64 (64 bits, unsigned).
The expression threshold_us * 1000 is currently being evaluated
using 32-bit arithmetic.
- u64 threshold_ns = threshold_us * 1000;
+ u64 threshold_ns = threshold_us * 1000ULL;
Shouldn't be other way around, i.e.
(u64)threshold_us ?
Either way works. The thing is that casting threshold_us to u64 may
imply that there is something wrong with threshold_us, which does not
seem to be the case. So adding the suffix ULL to the constant 1000 is
good enough to make the expression be evaluated using 64-bit
arithmetic instead of 32-bit.
But, again, either way works.
But still the question. have you checked all callers? Does it even
makes sense?
The proposed patch was due to fact that currently threshold_ns is of
type u64. But based on the following piece of code (which is the only
piece of code from where encode_l12_threshold is being called):
* Based on PCIe r3.1, sec 5.5.3.3.1, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, and
* Table 5-11. T(POWER_OFF) is at most 2us and T(L1.2) is at
* least 4us.
*/
l1_2_threshold = 2 + 4 + t_common_mode + t_power_on;
encode_l12_threshold(l1_2_threshold, &scale, &value);
It seems to me that it makes no sense for threshold_ns to be of type
u64, because the expression threshold_us * 1000 will never exceed the
32-bit limits. So if you agree I can send a patch to change its type
to u32 instead.
Thanks
--
Gustavo
