On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 7:19 AM Gustavo Pimentel <gustavo.pimen...@synopsys.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 21/12/2018 07:27, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > > Avoid using explicit left shifts and convert various definitions to > > use BIT() instead. No functional change intended. > > > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com> > > Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com> > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@nxp.com> > > Cc: Chris Healy <cphe...@gmail.com> > > Cc: Lucas Stach <l.st...@pengutronix.de> > > Cc: Leonard Crestez <leonard.cres...@nxp.com> > > Cc: "A.s. Dong" <aisheng.d...@nxp.com> > > Cc: Richard Zhu <hongxing....@nxp.com> > > Cc: linux-...@nxp.com > > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smir...@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 18 +++++++++--------- > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > index d123ac290b9e..086e87a40316 100644 > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c > > @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ void dw_pcie_disable_atu(struct dw_pcie *pci, int index, > > } > > > > dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, PCIE_ATU_VIEWPORT, region | index); > > - dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, PCIE_ATU_CR2, ~PCIE_ATU_ENABLE); > > + dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, PCIE_ATU_CR2, (u32)~PCIE_ATU_ENABLE); > > This is unrelated with the patch description purpose. >
This is a direct result of converting PCIE_ATU_ENABLE to BIT(31). BIT(31) expands to (1UL << 31) so, without that cast I get drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c: In function ‘dw_pcie_disable_atu’: drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c:303:40: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow] dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, PCIE_ATU_CR2, ~PCIE_ATU_ENABLE); on AArch64. I am guessing that original definition of (1 << 31) avoids this problem by being an "int" instead of "unsigned long". Thanks, Andrey Smirnov
