On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:39:03PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > On 19/03/2025 at 01:45, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:48:49AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote: > >> From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx> > > (...) > > >> +#define GENMASK(h, l) GENMASK_TYPE(unsigned long, h, l) > >> +#define GENMASK_ULL(h, l) GENMASK_TYPE(unsigned long long, h, l) > > > > I like everything except this part. We switch GENMASK() from a well > > tested implementation, including an asm code, and we split uapi and > > non-uapi users, with no functionality changes. > > > > Unification is a solid point, however. > > > > Let's make it a 2-step procedure? Adding fixed-width GENMASKs is a > > non-questionable improvement. Switching an existing API from one > > implementation to another should be a separate patch, and probably > > even a separate series. And we should be very clear that __GENMASK() > > is uapi-only thing from now. > > > > If we decide to switch GENMASK() in a separate series, we'll have some > > extra time to think about unification... > > Ack. I started drafting the split. The two series would look like: > > [Series #1] bits: Fixed-type GENMASK_U*() and BIT_U*() > - bits: introduce fixed-type GENMASK_U*() > - bits: introduce fixed-type BIT_U*() > - drm/i915: Convert REG_GENMASK*() to fixed-width GENMASK_U*() > - test_bits: add tests for GENMASK_U*() > - test_bits: add tests for BIT_U*() > > [Series #2] bits: Split asm and non-asm GENMASK*() and unify definitions > - bits: split the definition of the asm and non-asm GENMASK*() > - bits: unify the non-asm GENMASK*() > - test_bits: add tests for __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL() > > > Series #1 will leave GENMASK(), GENMASK_ULL() and GENMASK_128() > untouched. The final result after the Series #2 will be the exact same > code as of now. > > I am thinking of sending the two series at the same time, and then, you > can decide what is the good timing to merge these (and eventually, start > a separate discussion on the second series). > > Does this work for you? Yes. > On a side note, it did a lot of modifications to your original patch > which introduced the GENMASK_U*(). It is OK to tag myself as author and > you as co-author or do you still prefer to stay as the main author? Let > me know! Yes, I'm OK.
