linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] memory: tegra124-emc: Fix compilation warnings on 64bit platforms

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 16:35:47 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] memory: tegra124-emc: Fix compilation warnings on
 64bit platforms

17.05.2021 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет:
> On 16/05/2021 12:12, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Fix compilation warning on 64bit platforms caused by implicit promotion
>> of 32bit signed integer to a 64bit unsigned value which happens after
>> enabling compile-testing of the driver.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>> index 5699d909abc2..c9eb948cf4df 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra124-emc.c
>> @@ -272,8 +272,8 @@
>>  #define EMC_PUTERM_ADJ				0x574
>>  
>>  #define DRAM_DEV_SEL_ALL			0
>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0				(2 << 30)
>> -#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1				(1 << 30)
>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_0				(2u << 30)
>> +#define DRAM_DEV_SEL_1				(1u << 30)
> 
> Why not using BIT()? This would make even this 2<<30 less awkard...

The bitfield 31:30 is a enum, 3 is a wrong value. Formally it's
incorrect to use the BIT() macro here.