> Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] RDMA/irdma: Implement HW Admin Queue OPs > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:41:59AM +0000, Saleem, Shiraz wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/22] RDMA/irdma: Implement HW Admin Queue OPs > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 05:48:14PM -0600, Shiraz Saleem wrote: > > > > +#define LS_64_1(val, bits) ((u64)(uintptr_t)(val) << (bits)) > > > > +#define RS_64_1(val, bits) ((u64)(uintptr_t)(val) >> (bits)) > > > > +#define LS_32_1(val, bits) ((u32)((val) << (bits))) > > > > +#define RS_32_1(val, bits) ((u32)((val) >> (bits))) > > > > +#define LS_64(val, field) (((u64)(val) << field ## _S) & (field ## _M)) > > > > +#define RS_64(val, field) ((u64)((val) & field ## _M) >> field ## _S) > > > > +#define LS_32(val, field) (((val) << field ## _S) & (field ## _M)) > > > > +#define RS_32(val, field) (((val) & field ## _M) >> field ## _S) > > > > > > Yikes, why can't this use the normal GENMASK/FIELD_PREP > > > infrastructure like the other new drivers are now doing? > > > > > > EFA is not a perfect example, but EFA_GET/EFA_SET are the macros I > > > would expect to see, just without the _MASK thing. > > > > > > IBA_GET/SET shows how to do that pattern > > > > > > > +#define FLD_LS_64(dev, val, field) \ > > > > + (((u64)(val) << (dev)->hw_shifts[field ## _S]) & > > > > +(dev)->hw_masks[field ## > > > _M]) > > > > +#define FLD_RS_64(dev, val, field) \ > > > > + ((u64)((val) & (dev)->hw_masks[field ## _M]) >> > > > > +(dev)->hw_shifts[field ## > > > _S]) > > > > +#define FLD_LS_32(dev, val, field) \ > > > > + (((val) << (dev)->hw_shifts[field ## _S]) & (dev)->hw_masks[field ## _M]) > > > > +#define FLD_RS_32(dev, val, field) \ > > > > + ((u64)((val) & (dev)->hw_masks[field ## _M]) >> > > > > +(dev)->hw_shifts[field ## _S]) > > > > > > Is it because the register access is programmable? That shouldn't be > > > a significant problem. > > > > > > > Yes. How do we solve that? > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rdma/20200602232903.GD65026@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > / > > Ooh, I'm remarkably consistent after all this time > > I think the answer hasn't changed the point is to make the macros the same. > > And the LS/RS stuff isn't using the indirection, so why isn't it using normal > GENMASK stuff? > It can. And we will use FIELD_PREP / GENMASK on those that don't use the indirection. FLD_LS/RS will be left alone.
