On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 09:37 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Sorry, false alarm.  I was running spatch by itself on an inner
> > directory (.../i915/display), but when I used find, I was using
> > .../i915, so there was one more match happening there.
> > 
> > So, it seems that the latest head _does_ work fine! And I'm gettign
> > all
> > the matches and changes that I expect.  Thanks!
> 
> Great news :)

Maybe I celebrated a bit too early.  There is still one instance that
is not matching...

I currently have these rules:

@macros_noargs@
identifier m;
expression e =~ "dev_priv";
@@
#define m <+...e...+>

@nested_macros@
identifier macros_noargs.m;
identifier nm;
identifier list il;
@@
#define nm(il) <+...m...+>

@@
identifier nested_macros.nm;
identifier dev_priv, f;
expression list el;
@@
f(...) {
	...
	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = ...;

	<+...
	nm(
+	dev_priv,	
	el)
	...+>
}

@@
identifier nested_macros.nm;
identifier dev_priv, f;
expression list el;
@@
f(..., struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, ...) {
	<+...
	nm(
+	dev_priv,
	el)
	...+>
}

And then we have this function in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c:

void vlv_wait_port_ready(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
			 struct intel_digital_port *dig_port,
			 unsigned int expected_mask)
{
[...]
	switch (dig_port->base.port) {
	default:
		MISSING_CASE(dig_port->base.port);
		fallthrough;
	case PORT_B:
		port_mask = DPLL_PORTB_READY_MASK;
		dpll_reg = DPLL(0);
		break;
	case PORT_C:
		port_mask = DPLL_PORTC_READY_MASK;
		dpll_reg = DPLL(0);
		expected_mask <<= 4;
		break;
[...]
}

The DPLL macro is defined like this (in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i915_reg.h):

#define _DPLL_A (DISPLAY_MMIO_BASE(dev_priv) + 0x6014)
#define _DPLL_B (DISPLAY_MMIO_BASE(dev_priv) + 0x6018)
#define _CHV_DPLL_C (DISPLAY_MMIO_BASE(dev_priv) + 0x6030)
#define DPLL(pipe) _MMIO_PIPE3((pipe), _DPLL_A, _DPLL_B, _CHV_DPLL_C)


So it should match like the other instances, but it doesn't.  I copied
the macro definition and the function to stand-alone files (i.e.
without the rest of the code) and it matches, but in the real code,
running cocci like this, it doesn't:

~/public/coccinelle/spatch.opt --sp-file ~/dev_priv_i915.spatch --all-includes intel_display.c

I noticed some parsing errors when using --debug (output attached), so
maybe there's some parsing issues with the real file that prevents the
rule from applying?

Any clues?

--
Cheers,
Luca.