Hi Dan,
Thank you for the report.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:35 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Lad Prabhakar,
>
> Commit 13a8cae6e561 ("pinctrl: renesas: rzg2l: Drop struct
> rzg2l_variable_pin_cfg") from May 30, 2024 (linux-next), leads to the
> following Smatch static checker warning:
>
> drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c:374 rzg2l_pinctrl_get_variable_pin_cfg()
> warn: was expecting a 64 bit value instead of '~((((1))) << (16))'
>
Is there any way I can replicate the same on my setup? I tried the
kcehker utility but it didn't print the above warning.
> drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> 362 static u64 rzg2l_pinctrl_get_variable_pin_cfg(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl,
> 363 u64 pincfg,
> 364 unsigned int port,
> 365 u8 pin)
> 366 {
> 367 unsigned int i;
> 368
> 369 for (i = 0; i < pctrl->data->n_variable_pin_cfg; i++) {
> 370 u64 cfg = pctrl->data->variable_pin_cfg[i];
> 371
> 372 if (FIELD_GET(VARIABLE_PIN_CFG_PORT_MASK, cfg) == port &&
> 373 FIELD_GET(VARIABLE_PIN_CFG_PIN_MASK, cfg) == pin)
> --> 374 return (pincfg & ~PIN_CFG_VARIABLE) | FIELD_GET(PIN_CFG_MASK, cfg);
>
> pincfg is a u64 and we're returning a u64. The code here is trying to
> mask out PIN_CFG_VARIABLE which is BIT(16). But because it's BIT()
> instead of BIT_ULL(16) then it ends up masking the high 32 bits as well.
>
Thanks, I'll update the macro to use BIT_ULL().
@Geert, shal I update the PIN_CFG_* macros to use BIT_ULL to avoid
such issues further in the same patch?
Cheers,
Prabhakar
