On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Some of the MVPP2_PRS_RI_* definitions use the ~(value) syntax, which > doesn't compile nicely on 64-bit. Moreover, those definitions are in > fact unneeded, since they are always used in combination with a bit > mask that ensures only the appropriate bits are modified. > > Therefore, such definitions should just be set to 0x0. For example: > > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK 0x600 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST ~(BIT(9) | BIT(10)) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST BIT(9) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST BIT(10) > > becomes > > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK 0x600 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST 0x0 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST BIT(9) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST BIT(10)
So this is a two-bit field in a register with three defined states - I'm not sure that using BIT() here is really a good idea. BIT() is fine for single-bit controls, but I think it adds an additional level of confusion for multi-bit controls. Also, the combination of the mask being defined as hex and the controls using BIT() is particularly not nice. I think either use one style or the other, don't mix them. So either: #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK 0x600 #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST 0x000 #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST 0x200 #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST 0x400 or: #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK (BIT(10) | BIT(9)) #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST 0 #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST BIT(9) #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST BIT(10) It then becomes obvious that the mask and the settings are changing the same bits. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
