Re: [PATCH] drm/xe: Use USEC_PER_MSEC rather than the hard coding

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:03:25PM +0530, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
> Use USEC_PER_MSEC rather than the hard coded value of 1000.
> 
> Static analyzer Reported "casting either timeout_ms or
> 1000U to type u64" to avoid overflow-before-widen.
> Using USEC_PER_MSEC seems better and will help with static analyzer
> report cleanup.
> 
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
> index b324dc2a5deb..627e094c7cbe 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pcode.c
> @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ static int pcode_mailbox_rw(struct xe_gt *gt, u32 mbox, u32 *data0, u32 *data1,
>  	xe_mmio_write32(gt, PCODE_MAILBOX, PCODE_READY | mbox);
>  
>  	err = xe_mmio_wait32(gt, PCODE_MAILBOX, PCODE_READY, 0,
> -			     timeout_ms * 1000, NULL, atomic);
> +			     timeout_ms * USEC_PER_MSEC, NULL, atomic);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>