On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:47:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:45:19PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:25:18PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 12 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:14:02PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > >> >> >> Add GENMASK_U32(), GENMASK_U16() and GENMASK_U8() macros to create > >> >> >> masks for fixed-width types and also the corresponding BIT_U32(), > >> >> >> BIT_U16() and BIT_U8(). > >> >> > > >> >> > Why? > >> >> > >> >> The main reason is that GENMASK() and BIT() size varies for 32/64 bit > >> >> builds. > >> > > >> > When needed GENMASK_ULL() can be used (with respective castings perhaps) > >> > and BIT_ULL(), no? > >> > >> How does that help with making them the same 32-bit size on both 32 and > >> 64 bit builds? > > > > u32 x = GENMASK(); > > u64 y = GENMASK_ULL(); > > > > No? Then use in your code either x or y. Note that I assume that the parameters > > to GENMASK*() are built-time constants. Is it the case for you? > > What's wrong with wanting to define macros with specific size, depending > on e.g. hardware registers instead of build size? Nothing, but I think the problem is smaller than it's presented. And there are already header for bitfields with a lot of helpers for (similar) cases if not yours. > What would you use for printk format if you wanted to to print > GENMASK()? %lu, no? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
