On 17/05/2021 09:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 17.05.2021 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет: >> On 16/05/2021 12:12, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>> Fix compilation warning on 64bit platforms caused by implicit promotion >>> of 32bit signed integer to a 64bit unsigned value which happens after >>> enabling compile-testing of the driver. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c >>> index 5699d909abc2..c9eb948cf4df 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c >>> @@ -272,8 +272,8 @@ >>> #define EMC_PUTERM_ADJ 0x574 >>> >>> #define DRAM_DEV_SEL_ALL 0 >>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0 (2 << 30) >>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1 (1 << 30) >>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0 (2u << 30) >>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1 (1u << 30) >> >> Why not using BIT()? This would make even this 2<<30 less awkard... > > The bitfield 31:30 is a enum, 3 is a wrong value. Formally it's > incorrect to use the BIT() macro here. Why "3"? BIT(31) is the same as 2<<30. It's common to use BIT for register fields which do not accept all possible values. Now you basically reimplement BIT() which is error-prone. Best regards, Krzysztof
