On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 03:22:49PM +0100, Diogo Ivo wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 10:53:05AM GMT, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Hello Diogo Ivo,
> >
> > Commit 27ffe4ff0b33 ("usb: typec: ucsi: Only enable supported
> > notifications") from Mar 27, 2024 (linux-next), leads to the
> > following Smatch static checker warning:
> >
> > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c:1671 ucsi_get_supported_notifications()
> > warn: was expecting a 64 bit value instead of '((((1))) << (24))'
> >
> > drivers/usb/typec/ucsi/ucsi.c
> > 1665 static u64 ucsi_get_supported_notifications(struct ucsi *ucsi)
> > 1666 {
> > 1667 u8 features = ucsi->cap.features;
> > 1668 u64 ntfy = UCSI_ENABLE_NTFY_ALL;
> > 1669
> > 1670 if (!(features & UCSI_CAP_ALT_MODE_DETAILS))
> > --> 1671 ntfy &= ~UCSI_ENABLE_NTFY_CAM_CHANGE;
> >
> > ntfy is a u64 but UCSI_ENABLE_NTFY_CAM_CHANGE is unsigned long. So on
> > a 32 bit system this will clear the high 32 bits. So far as I can see
> > ntfy should just be a u32. Either way, the types should match.
> > BIT_ULL() is the way to do that if it really needs to be a u64.
>
> In my view this variable really should be a u64 and the definitions of
> the UCSI_ENABLE_NTFY_* need to be changed to BIT_ULL(). This is due to
> UCSI versions 2.0 and up definining a new notification on bit 33, crossing
> the u32 barrier. My suggestion for addressing this is sending two
> patches, one for changing BIT() -> BIT_ULL() and adding the missing
> define for the notification of bit 33 and a separate patch to handle
> this new notification bit in ucsi_get_supported_notifications()/ucsi_init().
>
> Thank you for the report and please let me know if this sounds
> reasonable, or if it would be better to split the changes in another
> way.
Yes, this sounds reasonable to me. I don't know the hardware at all and
didn't know you were planning to add a BIT(33).
regards,
dan carpenter
