On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 16:23 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > (changing the subject and adding Arnd) > > > > Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > @@ -3181,6 +3204,15 @@ static inline struct rtw89_fw_c2h_attr *RTW89_SKB_C2H_CB(struct > > > > > sk_buff *skb) > > > > > #define RTW89_GET_MAC_C2H_REV_ACK_H2C_SEQ(c2h) \ > > > > > le32_get_bits(*((const __le32 *)(c2h) + 2), GENMASK(23, 16)) > > > > > > > > > > +#define RTW89_GET_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_MACID(c2h) \ > > > > > + le32_get_bits(*((const __le32 *)(c2h) + 2), GENMASK(7, 0)) > > > > > +#define RTW89_GET_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_TYPE(c2h) \ > > > > > + le32_get_bits(*((const __le32 *)(c2h) + 2), GENMASK(9, 8)) > > > > > +#define RTW89_GET_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_EVENT(c2h) \ > > > > > + le32_get_bits(*((const __le32 *)(c2h) + 2), GENMASK(11, 10)) > > > > > +#define RTW89_GET_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_MA(c2h) \ > > > > > + le32_get_bits(*((const __le32 *)(c2h) + 2), GENMASK(23, 16)) > > > > > > > > I have to admit that I every time I see this code pattern it makes me > > > > regret it. Something like what Arnd proposed back in the day would look > > > > so much cleaner: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAK8P3a1rsKZZKMKFTDWgE3usX9gYKJqUvTMxSdEuZrp8BaKdaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > Of course this is just a generic comment about rtw89, and has nothing to > > > > do with this patchset, but it would be great if someone could take a > > > > look and try out Arnd's proposal. It would be good to start with just > > > > one or two commands and send that as an RFC to see how it looks like. > > > > > > > > > > I write a draft RFC here. Please see if it's in expectation. If so, I can > > > change all of them by another patch or RFC. > > > > > > In header file: > > > > > > #define RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_MACID_MASK GENMASK(7, 0) > > > #define RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_TYPE_MASK GENMASK(9, 8) > > > #define RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_EVENT_MASK GENMASK(11, 10) > > > #define RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_MA_MASK GENMASK(23, 16) > > > > > > > > > Access the values via le32_get_bits() in functions somewhere: > > > > > > const __le32 *c2h = skb->data; > > > > > > type = le32_get_bits(c2h[2], RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_MACID_MASK); > > > sig = le32_get_bits(c2h[2], > > > RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_MA_MASK) - MAX_RSSI; > > > event = le32_get_bits(c2h[2], RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_EVENT_MASK); > > > mac_id = le32_get_bits(c2h[2], RTW89_C2H_MAC_BCNFLTR_RPT_W2_MACID_MASK); > > > > I was thinking more something towards Arnd's idea he suggests in [1]. > > Here's my proposal for the beacon filter command as pseudo code (so not > > compiled and very much buggy!) from the patch[2] which started this > > recent discussion. > > > > So in the header file we would have something like this: > > > > #define RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_MACID_MASK GENMASK(7, 0) > > #define RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_TYPE_MASK GENMASK(9, 8) > > #define RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_EVENT_MASK GENMASK(11, 10) > > #define RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_MA_MASK GENMASK(23, 16) > > > > struct rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter { > > __le32 word0; > > } > > > > static inline void rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter_set_word0(struct rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter > > *cmd, > > u32 macid, u32 type, u32 event_mask, u32 ma) > > > > { > > le32_replace_bits(cmd->word0, macid, RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_MACID_MASK); > > le32_replace_bits(cmd->word0, type, RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_TYPE_MASK); > > le32_replace_bits(cmd->word0, event, RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_EVENT_MASK); > > le32_replace_bits(cmd->word0, ma, RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_MA_MASK); > > } > > > > static inline u32 rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter_get_mac_id(const struct > > rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter *cmd) > > { > > return le32_get_bits(cmd->word0, RTW89_C2H_BEACON_FILTER_WORD0_MACID_MASK); > > } > > > > And an example how to use these: > > > > struct rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter *cmd; > > > > skb = rtw89_fw_h2c_alloc_skb_with_hdr(rtwdev, sizeof(*cmd)); > > cmd = (struct rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter *)skb->data; > > rtw89_h2c_cfg_beacon_filter_set_word0(cmd, 1, 2, 0, 0); > > > > I'm sure this is very buggy and I'm missing a lot but I hope you get the > > idea anyway. My keypoints here are: > > > > * there's a clear struct for the command (an "object" from OOP point of > > view), something like "__le32 *c2h" is very confusing > > * no casting > > * no pointer arithmetic > > * you get length with a simple "sizeof(*cmd)" Super appreciate to propose pseudo code and these clear rules to us. :-) I will record these rules in our internal wiki page. > > > > Downside of course is that there's quite a lot of boilerplate code but I > > still consider that positives outweight the negatives. Thoughts? > > > > And I'll emphasise that this is not a blocker for anything but it would > > be nice to clean this up both in rtw88 and rtw89 at some point, if we > > can. Since they will be a lot of works and I have a lot of local patches on hand, can I apply these rules to the patches and submit them ahead? Until all things or a bunch of conversion are completed (maybe weeks or one or two months later), I can submit patches that only convert these H2C/C2H with new rules. Does it work to you? > > Heh, I didn't notice that Ping had done almost the same in v4: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20230320124125.15873-2-pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > The only difference I notice that you didn't use special functions for > setting or getting the fields: > > h2c->w0 = le32_encode_bits(connect, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_MON_RSSI) | > le32_encode_bits(connect, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_MON_BCN) | > le32_encode_bits(connect, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_MON_EN) | > le32_encode_bits(RTW89_BCN_FLTR_OFFLOAD_MODE_DEFAULT, > RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_MODE) | > le32_encode_bits(RTW89_BCN_LOSS_CNT, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_BCN_LOSS_CNT) | > le32_encode_bits(bss_conf->cqm_rssi_hyst, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_RSSI_HYST) | > le32_encode_bits(bss_conf->cqm_rssi_thold + MAX_RSSI, > RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_RSSI_THRESHOLD) | > le32_encode_bits(rtwvif->mac_id, RTW89_H2C_BCNFLTR_W0_MAC_ID); > > And I understand why you did it like this, less boilerplate code. So > looks good to me, thanks! Sorry, I forget to mention this in original discussion thread. As I mentioned in v4, I will open mind to convert them again if any suggestion to improve these things in the future. Appreciate your suggestion again. Ping-Ke
