From: Thomas Petazzoni > Sent: 27 December 2016 16:54 > Some of the MVPP2_PRS_RI_* definitions use the ~(value) syntax, which > doesn't compile nicely on 64-bit. Moreover, those definitions are in > fact unneeded, since they are always used in combination with a bit > mask that ensures only the appropriate bits are modified. > > Therefore, such definitions should just be set to 0x0. For example: > > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK 0x600 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST ~(BIT(9) | BIT(10)) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST BIT(9) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST BIT(10) > > becomes > > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK 0x600 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST 0x0 > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST BIT(9) > #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST BIT(10) ... Shouldn't MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK be defined as (MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST | MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST)?
David