From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] drm/i915: Added SDP and VSC structures
 for handling PSR for eDP
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:42:13 +0100
Message-ID: <50F3EF15.8030703@spth.de>
References: <1357934277-3300-1-git-send-email-rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>
	<1357934277-3300-3-git-send-email-rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>
	<20130111201540.GK5737@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<20130114112227.GD3867@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from smtp2.informatik.uni-freiburg.de
	(mx2.informatik.uni-freiburg.de [132.230.150.5])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1AEE5BF3
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:07:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20130114112227.GD3867@intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ville_Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

Am 14.01.2013 12:22, schrieb Ville Syrj=E4l=E4:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:15:40PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 05:57:51PM -0200, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>>> From: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@intel.com>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sateesh Kavuri <sateesh.kavuri@intel.com>
>>>
>>> v2: Modified and corrected the structures to be more in line for
>>> kernel coding guidelines and rebased the code on Paulo's DP patchset
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shobhit Kumar <shobhit.kumar@intel.com>
>>>
>>> v3: removing unecessary identation at DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com>
>>
>> DP spec stuff should be put into the drm core imo, i.e. into
>> include/drm/drm_dp_helper.h Since all bitfields are u8 we also have no
>> problems with endianess for this.
> =

> I don't think C guarantees anything about the order of bits inside
> bitfieds.
> =


C11 standard, section 6.7.2.1:

"An implementation may allocate any addressable storage unit large
enough to hold a bit-field. If enough space remains, a bit-field that
immediately follows another bit-field in a structure shall be packed
into adjacent bits of the same unit. If insufficient space remains,
whether a bit-field that does not fit is put into the next unit or
overlaps adjacent units is implementation-defined. The order of
allocation of bit-fields within a unit (high-order to low-order or
low-order to high-order) is implementation-defined. The alignment of the
addressable storage unit is unspecified."

C doesn't guarantee that your u8 is a valid type for bit-fields. The
only types a C compiler must support for bit-fields are bool, int,
signed int and unsigned int (note that bit-fields are also the only
place where the type int can be different from signed int).

Philipp