Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH v4 09/13] rtw88: chip files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2019-01-31 at 13:52 +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Tony Chuang <yhchuang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > > From: Brian Norris [mailto:briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > 
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +rtw_write32s_mask(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u32 addr, u32 mask, u32 data)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	BUILD_BUG_ON(addr < 0xC00 || addr >= 0xD00);
> > > 
> > > This seems to be a non-traditional use of BUILD_BUG_ON(). Normally, I
> > > see this used for stuff that's guaranteed to be known at compile time --
> > > structure offsets, constants, etc. This is usually (always?) a constant,
> > > but it passes through a function parameter, so I'm not sure if that's
> > > really guaranteed.
> > > 
> > > Anyway...this is failing confusingly for me when I try to build:
> > > 
> > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8822b.c: In function
> > > ‘rtw_write32s_mask’:
> > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8822b.c:230:176: error: call to
> > > ‘__compiletime_assert_230’ declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG_ON
> > > failed: addr < 0xC00 || addr >= 0xD00
> > >   BUILD_BUG_ON(addr < 0xC00 || addr >= 0xD00);
> > > 
> > > ^
> > > 
> > > I tried to pinpoint which call yielded this, and I think once I deleted
> > > enough calls to rtw_write32s_mask() it came down to this one:
> > > 
> > >         rtw_write32s_mask(rtwdev, REG_RFEINV, BIT(11) | BIT(10) | 0x3f,
> > > 0x0);
> > > 
> > > which doesn't really make sense, as that's a value of 0xcbc.
> > > 
> > > What I really think it comes down to is that you can't guarantee
> > > rtw_write32s_mask() will get inlined, and so BUILD_BUG_ON() may not know
> > > what to do with it.
> > 
> > Yeah, you're right. I think we should turn it into macro.
> 
> Does this really need to be a build time check? Like Brian said, this is
> not really common use of BUILD_BUG_ON(). I would just change it to
> WARN_ON_ONCE() or a ratelimited warning message so that we don't to have
> an ugly macro.

Well, it *is* strictly stronger as a build-time check, so that makes
sense?

I'd probably still suggest doing something like this:

static inline void _rtw_write32s_mask(...)
{
  ... as before w/o BUILD_BUG_ON ...
}
#define rtw_write32s_mask(bla, bla) do { \
   BUILD_BUG_ON(...); \
   _rtw_write32s_mask(...); \
} while (0)

so you also get the type checks etc. from having actual function args.

johannes




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Wireless Regulations]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux