On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 22:05 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Auld (2017-11-24 21:29:22)
> > From: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
> >
> > In preparation for upcoming SKUs, allow more freedom in placement
> > of the Intel graphics stolen memory by BIOS to full 64bit range.
> >
> > v2: export the stolen region as a resource
> > fix u16 << 16 (Chris)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> #v1
> > ---
> > -static phys_addr_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> > - size_t stolen_size)
> > +static resource_size_t __init i865_stolen_base(int num, int slot, int func,
> > + resource_size_t stolen_size)
> > {
> > u16 toud = 0;
> >
> > toud = read_pci_config_16(0, 0, 0, I865_TOUD);
> >
> > - return (phys_addr_t)(toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();
> > + return (resource_size_t)(toud << 16) + i845_tseg_size();
>
> We need the cast on toud before the <<.
I was thinking should could convert this into multiplication, while at
it. Does that make sense to you?
return (toud * KB(64)) + i845_tseg_size();
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
