RE: [PATCH v6 12/26] bitfield: Add less-checking __FIELD_{GET,PREP}()

[Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>]

Hi Geert,

Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > Hi Ping-Ke,
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2025 at 02:16, Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > The extra checking in field_prep() in case the compiler can
> > > > determine that the mask is a constant already found a possible bug
> > > > in drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/core.c:rtw89_roc_end():
> > > >
> > > >     rtw89_write32_mask(rtwdev, reg, B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK, rtwdev->hal.rx_fltr);
> > > >
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw89/reg.h:
> > > >
> > > >     #define B_AX_RX_MPDU_MAX_LEN_MASK GENMASK(21, 16)
> > > >     #define B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK ((u32)~B_AX_RX_MPDU_MAX_LEN_MASK)
> > > >
> > > > so it looks like B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK is not the proper mask for
> > > > this operation...
> > >
> > > The purpose of the statements is to update values excluding bits of
> > > B_AX_RX_MPDU_MAX_LEN_MASK. The use of B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK is tricky, but
> > > the operation is correct because bit 0 is set, so __ffs(mask) returns 0 in
> > > rtw89_write32_mask(). Then, operation looks like
> > >
> > >    orig = read(reg);
> > >    new = (orig & ~mask) | (data & mask);
> > >    write(new);
> >
> > Thanks for your quick confirmation!
> > So the intention really is to clear bits 22-31, and write the rx_fltr
> > value to bits 0-15?
> >
> > if the clearing is not needed, it would be better to use
> > #define B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK GENMASK(15, 0)
> 
> But it should be
> #define B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK (GENMASK(31, 22) | GENMASK(15, 0))
> 
> Originally (with bug) we just backup rx_fltr and write whole 32-bits back,
> but it's incorrect to modify GENMASK(21, 16) which is written by another
> code.
> 
> One way is to implement a special function to replace
>   rtw89_write32_mask(rtwdev, reg, B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK, rtwdev->hal.rx_fltr);
> Such as
>   rtw89_write_rx_flter(rtwdev, rtwdev->hal.rx_fltr)
>   {
>     orig = read(reg);
>     new = (orig & ~mask) | (data & mask);
>     write(new);
>   }
> 
> Another way is that I add value of B_AX_RX_MPDU_MAX_LEN_MASK into
> rtwdev->hal.rx_fltr. Then, just write whole 32-bit, no need mask.
> 
> >
> > If the clearing is needed, I still think it would be better to
> > change B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK, and split the clearing off in a separate
> > operation, to make it more explicit and obvious for the casual reader.

I missed this paragraph last week, but that is like my thought.
Then I spin a RFT [1]. Please try if it can work with your changes.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/20251110023707.6272-1-pkshih@realtek.com/T/#u

> >
> > > Since we don't use FIELD_{GET,PREP} macros with B_AX_RX_FLTR_CFG_MASK, how
> > > can you find the problem? Please guide us. Thanks.
> >
> > I still have "[PATCH/RFC 17/17] rtw89: Use bitfield helpers"
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/f7b81122f7596fa004188bfae68f25a68c2d2392.1637592133.git.geert+renesas@glid
> > er.be/
> > in my local tree, which started flagging the use of a discontiguous
> > mask with the improved checking in field_prep().
> 
> Got it. You are doing "Non-const bitfield helper conversions".
> 
> Ping-Ke