Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] nova-core: bitstruct: Add support for custom visiblity

[Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 12:40:17PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu Sep 4, 2025 at 6:54 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Add support for custom visiblity to allow for users to control visibility
> > of the structure and helpers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs   | 46 ++++++++++++++--------------
> >  drivers/gpu/nova-core/regs/macros.rs | 16 +++++-----
> >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs
> > index 068334c86981..1047c5c17e2d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitstruct.rs
> > @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
> >  ///
> >  /// ```rust
> >  /// bitstruct! {
> > -///     struct ControlReg: u32 {
> > +///     pub struct ControlReg: u32 {
> >  ///         3:0       mode        as u8 ?=> Mode;
> >  ///         7:4       state       as u8 => State;
> >  ///     }
> 
> Maybe mention in the documentation that the field accessors are given
> the same visibility as the type - otherwise one might be led into
> thinking that they can specify visibility for individual fields as well
> (I'm wondering whether we might ever want that in the future?).

Sure, good idea, done.

> > @@ -34,21 +34,21 @@
> >  ///   and returns the result. This is useful with fields for which not all values are valid.
> >  macro_rules! bitstruct {
> >      // Main entry point - defines the bitfield struct with fields
> > -    (struct $name:ident : $storage:ty $(, $comment:literal)? { $($fields:tt)* }) => {
> > -        bitstruct!(@core $name $storage $(, $comment)? { $($fields)* });
> > +    ($vis:vis struct $name:ident : $storage:ty $(, $comment:literal)? { $($fields:tt)* }) => {
> > +        bitstruct!(@core $name $vis $storage $(, $comment)? { $($fields)* });
> >      };
> >  
> >      // All rules below are helpers.
> >  
> >      // Defines the wrapper `$name` type, as well as its relevant implementations (`Debug`,
> >      // `Default`, `BitOr`, and conversion to the value type) and field accessor methods.
> > -    (@core $name:ident $storage:ty $(, $comment:literal)? { $($fields:tt)* }) => {
> > +    (@core $name:ident $vis:vis $storage:ty $(, $comment:literal)? { $($fields:tt)* }) => {
> 
> Being very nitpicky here, but for consistency why not put `$vis` before
> `$name` since it is the order they are given by the caller?

Perfect comment, changed it.

> >          $(
> >          #[doc=$comment]
> >          )?
> >          #[repr(transparent)]
> >          #[derive(Clone, Copy)]
> > -        pub(crate) struct $name($storage);
> > +        $vis struct $name($vis $storage);
> 
> `$storage` should probably be kept private - we already have accessors
> for it, and the visibility parameter is for the outer type, not its
> internals.

Already done for next revision. Thanks,

thanks,

 - Joel