[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PCI/ASPM: Use 64-bit arithmetic instead of 32-bit
Hi Andy,

Quoting Andy Shevchenko <>:

> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva
> <> wrote:
>> Add suffix ULL to constant 1000 in order to give the compiler complete
>> information about the proper arithmetic to use. Notice that this
>> constant is used in a context that expects an expression of type
>> u64 (64 bits, unsigned).
>> The expression threshold_us * 1000 is currently being evaluated
>> using 32-bit arithmetic.
>> - u64 threshold_ns = threshold_us * 1000;
>> + u64 threshold_ns = threshold_us * 1000ULL;
> Shouldn't be other way around, i.e.
> (u64)threshold_us ?

Either way works. The thing is that casting threshold_us to u64 may
imply that there is something wrong with threshold_us, which does not
seem to be the case. So adding the suffix ULL to the constant 1000 is
good enough to make the expression be evaluated using 64-bit
arithmetic instead of 32-bit.

But, again, either way works.

> But still the question. have you checked all callers? Does it even
> makes sense?

The proposed patch was due to fact that currently threshold_ns is of
type u64. But based on the following piece of code (which is the only
piece of code from where encode_l12_threshold is being called):

* Based on PCIe r3.1, sec, Figures 5-16 and 5-17, and
* Table 5-11. T(POWER_OFF) is at most 2us and T(L1.2) is at
* least 4us.
l1_2_threshold = 2 + 4 + t_common_mode + t_power_on;
encode_l12_threshold(l1_2_threshold, &scale, &value);

It seems to me that it makes no sense for threshold_ns to be of type
u64, because the expression threshold_us * 1000 will never exceed the
32-bit limits. So if you agree I can send a patch to change its type
to u32 instead.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-13 20:30    [W:0.112 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site