[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z_-E3W8i4EfxdBh3@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:22:21 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Use resource_set_{range,size}() helpers
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> Convert open coded resource size calculations to use
> resource_set_{range,size}() helpers.
>
> While at it, use SZ_* for size parameter which makes the intent of code
> more obvious.
...
> + resource_set_range(res, base, 1ULL << (segn_busn_bits + 20));
Then probably
resource_set_range(res, base, BIT_ULL(segn_busn_bits) * SZ_1M);
to follow the same "While at it"?
...
> + resource_set_range(res, 0xC0000, SZ_128K);
> res->flags = IORESOURCE_MEM | IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW |
> IORESOURCE_PCI_FIXED;
I'm wondering why not DEFINE_RES_MEM() in such cases?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists