Hi Robin, On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 04:58:50PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote: > Before trying to add the SMMUv3.1 support for 52-bit addresses, make > things bearable by cleaning up the various address mask definitions to > use GENMASK_ULL() consistently. The fact that doing so reveals (and > fixes) a latent off-by-one in Q_BASE_ADDR_MASK only goes to show what a > jolly good idea it is... > > Tested-by: Nate Watterson <nwatt...@codeaurora.org> > Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> > --- > > v2: Clean up one more now-unnecessary linewrap > > drivers/iommu/arm-smmu-v3.c | 53 > ++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
Whilst I agree that using GENMASK is better, this patch does mean that the driver is (more) inconsistent with its _MASK terminology in that you can't generally tell whether a definition that ends in _MASK is shifted or not, and this isn't even consistent for fields within the same register. Should we be using GENMASK/BIT for all fields instead and removing all of the _SHIFT definitions? Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu