lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCHv3 wl-drv-next 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros
From
Date
On 01.07.2016 23:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> C bitfields are problematic and best avoided. Developers
> interacting with hardware registers find themselves searching
> for easy-to-use alternatives. Common approach is to define
> structures or sets of macros containing mask and shift pair.
> Operations on the register are then performed as follows:
>
> field = (reg >> shift) & mask;
>
> reg &= ~(mask << shift);
> reg |= (field & mask) << shift;
>
> Defining shift and mask separately is tedious. Ivo van Doorn
> came up with an idea of computing them at compilation time
> based on a single shifted mask (later refined by Felix) which
> can be used like this:
>
> #define REG_FIELD 0x000ff000
>
> field = FIELD_GET(REG_FIELD, reg);
>
> reg &= ~REG_FIELD;
> reg |= FIELD_PUT(REG_FIELD, field);
>
> FIELD_{GET,PUT} macros take care of finding out what the
> appropriate shift is based on compilation time ffs operation.
>
> GENMASK can be used to define registers (which is usually
> less error-prone and easier to match with datasheets).
>
> This approach is the most convenient I've seen so to limit code
> multiplication let's move the macros to a global header file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
> ---
> include/linux/bitfield.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/bug.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/bitfield.h
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..d6a36c3c1775
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
> + * Copyright (C) 2004 - 2009 Ivo van Doorn <IvDoorn@gmail.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2
> + * as published by the Free Software Foundation
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> +#define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> +
> +#include <asm/types.h>
> +#include <linux/bug.h>
> +#include <linux/log2.h>
> +
> +#define _bf_shf(x) (__builtin_ffsll(x) - 1)
> +
> +#define _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val) \
> + ({ \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(!(_mask)); \
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
> + ~((_mask) >> _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : \
> + 0); \
> + __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
> + (1ULL << _bf_shf(_mask))); \
> + })
> +
> +#define FIELD_PUT(_mask, _val) \
> + ({ \
> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> + ((u32)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> + })
> +
> +#define FIELD_GET(_mask, _val) \
> + ({ \
> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> + (u32)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> + })
> +
> +#define FIELD_PUT64(_mask, _val) \
> + ({ \
> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> + ((u64)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> + })
> +
> +#define FIELD_GET64(_mask, _val) \
> + ({ \
> + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> + (u64)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> + })
> +
> +#endif

Cool! I think this is totally fine. Albeit one point: can you put your
commit comment into the header itself. People check header files more
often than git commits for documentation and it should be quickly
graspable by a developer if someone looks them up.

Thanks,
Hannes

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-03 22:21    [W:0.043 / U:1.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site