lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ASoC: sti: uniperif: fix the undefined bitwise shift behavior problem
From
This is a kindly resend email.
Sorry for the error style of last email :(
On 2024/3/26 13:30, Su Hui wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2024/3/25 22:25, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 11:40:33AM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
>>> --- a/sound/soc/sti/uniperif.h
>>> +++ b/sound/soc/sti/uniperif.h
>>> @@ -12,17 +12,28 @@
>>>
>>> #include <sound/dmaengine_pcm.h>
>>>
>>> +#define SR_SHIFT(a, b) ({unsigned long __a = (a); \
>>> + unsigned int __b = (b); \
>>> + __b < BITS_PER_LONG ? \
>>> + __a >> __b : 0; })
>> The code definitely looks buggy, but how do you know your solution is
>> correct without testing it?
> I only test some cases like SR_SHIFT(1, -1),SR_SHIFT(8,1), it seems have a right result.
> Oh, maybe I understand it. When 'a' is a negative value like '(int)-1', SR_SHIFT(a, b) will
> have some bugs.
>> I don't like this solution at all. This is basically a really
>> complicated way of writing "if (b != -1)". Instead of checking for -1,
>> the better solution is to just stop passing -1. If you review that
>> file, every time it uses "-1" that's either dead code or a bug...
> Agreed,some are dead codes which can be removed, but what should we do with the
> following error codes like this one?
> sound/soc/sti/uniperif.h
> 415 #define UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip) \
> 416 ((ip)->ver < SND_ST_UNIPERIF_VERSION_UNI_PLR_TOP_1_0 ? 7 : -1)
> ...
> 423 #define SET_UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_DISABLE(ip) \
> 424 SET_UNIPERIF_REG(ip, \
> 425 UNIPERIF_CONFIG_OFFSET(ip), \
> 426 UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip), \
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> How about this solution? If the condition is false, just skip it.
>
> @@ -412,8 +412,7 @@
> UNIPERIF_CONFIG_REPEAT_CHL_STS_MASK(ip), 1)
>
> /* BACK_STALL_REQ */
> -#define UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip) \
> - ((ip)->ver < SND_ST_UNIPERIF_VERSION_UNI_PLR_TOP_1_0 ? 7 : -1)
> +#define UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip) 7
> #define UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_MASK(ip) 0x1
> #define GET_UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ(ip) \
> GET_UNIPERIF_REG(ip, \
> @@ -421,10 +420,11 @@
> UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip), \
> UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_MASK(ip))
> #define SET_UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_DISABLE(ip) \
> + ((ip)->ver < SND_ST_UNIPERIF_VERSION_UNI_PLR_TOP_1_0 ? -1 : \
> SET_UNIPERIF_REG(ip, \
> UNIPERIF_CONFIG_OFFSET(ip), \
> UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_SHIFT(ip), \
> - UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_MASK(ip), 0)
> + UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_MASK(ip), 0))
> #define SET_UNIPERIF_CONFIG_BACK_STALL_REQ_ENABLE(ip) \
>
> Maybe should print some error log here.
> I'm not sure about the safety of skipping SET_UNIPERIF_REG when the condition is false,
>
> Would it be better to make the result of undefined shift equal to zero?
>
> regards,
> Su Hui
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 16:10    [W:0.030 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site