On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Terje Bergstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/16/2015 11:26 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> >> Looks good, but I think I would definitely prefer this to be a mask >> instead of a bit index, i.e: >> >> r->offset &= ~(priv->iommu_addr_mask >> priv->iommu_pgshift); >> >> and >> >> r->offset |= (priv->iommu_addr_mask >> priv->iommu_pgshift); > > Wouldn't that be just a more complicated way of expressing the same thing?
Right now we have r->offset |= BIT(priv->iommu_phys_addr_bit - priv->iommu_pgshift), which doesn't look much simpler. :) _______________________________________________ Nouveau mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
