Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix using BIT_ULL() vs. BIT() for power domain masks
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 14:20 +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> The power domain masks are 64 bit wide, so we need BIT_ULL() when
> setting bits in them, these ones were missed during converting from 32
> to 64 bit masks. All 3 enums are <32 atm, so this didn't cause a real
> problem.
>
> Fixes: d8fc70b7367b ("drm/i915: Make power domain masks 64 bit long")
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen
> Reported-by: Fengguang Wu
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak
Those are some strange misses, surrounded by code that was touched.
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix using BIT_ULL() vs. BIT() for power domain masks
Quoting Imre Deak (2018-01-09 12:20:40)
> The power domain masks are 64 bit wide, so we need BIT_ULL() when
> setting bits in them, these ones were missed during converting from 32
> to 64 bit masks. All 3 enums are <32 atm, so this didn't cause a real
> problem.
>
> Fixes: d8fc70b7367b ("drm/i915: Make power domain masks 64 bit long")
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen
> Reported-by: Fengguang Wu
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak
And they are the only 3.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
