Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix using BIT_ULL() vs. BIT() for power domain masks

2018-01-09 Thread Joonas Lahtinen
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: d8fc70b7367

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix using BIT_ULL() vs. BIT() for power domain masks

2018-01-09 Thread Chris Wilson
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

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix using BIT_ULL() vs. BIT() for power domain masks

2018-01-09 Thread Imre Deak
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 L