On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 05:46:05PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:

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)

So this is a two-bit field in a register with three defined states - I'm
not sure that using BIT() here is really a good idea.  BIT() is fine for
single-bit controls, but I think it adds an additional level of confusion
for multi-bit controls.

Also, the combination of the mask being defined as hex and the controls
using BIT() is particularly not nice.  I think either use one style or
the other, don't mix them.  So either:

  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK              0x600
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST                  0x000
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST                  0x200
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST                  0x400

or:

  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_CAST_MASK              (BIT(10) | BIT(9))
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_UCAST                  0
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_MCAST                  BIT(9)
  #define MVPP2_PRS_RI_L2_BCAST                  BIT(10)

It then becomes obvious that the mask and the settings are changing the
same bits.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.