Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Use resource_set_{range,size}() helpers

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Apr 2025, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 16 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 01:13:18PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > > Convert open coded resource size calculations to use
> > > > > resource_set_{range,size}() helpers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > While at it, use SZ_* for size parameter which makes the intent of code
> > > > > more obvious.
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > > +	resource_set_range(res, base, 1ULL << (segn_busn_bits + 20));
> > > > 
> > > > Then probably
> > > > 
> > > > 	resource_set_range(res, base, BIT_ULL(segn_busn_bits) * SZ_1M);
> > > > 
> > > > to follow the same "While at it"?
> > > 
> > > I'll change that now since you brought it up. It did cross my mind to 
> > > convert that to * SZ_1M but it seemed to go farther than I wanted with a 
> > > simple conversion patch.
> > > 
> > > I've never liked the abuse of BIT*() for size related shifts though, 
> > > I recall I saw somewhere a helper that was better named for size 
> > > related operations but I just cannot recall its name and seem to not 
> > > find that anymore :-(. But until I come across it once again, I guess 
> > > I'll have to settle to BIT*().
> > 
> > BITS_TO_LONGS()?
> 
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> I'm not entiry sure if you're referring to my BIT*() matching unrelated
> macros such as BITS_TO_LONGS() (I only meant BIT() and BIT_ULL() which I 
> thought was clear from the context), or that BITS_TO_LONGS() would be the 
> solution what I'm looking for.

Indeed, I misremembered BITS_TO_LONGS() - now that I looked up its 
definition it's definitely not what you wanted... :)

Thanks,

	Ingo