Re: [PATCH kernel 1/9] pci/tsm: Add TDISP report blob and helpers to parse it

[<dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
[..]
> I cannot easily see from these what the sizes are. And how many of each.

Same as any other offset+bitmask code, the size is encoded in the accessor.

Arnd caught that I misspoke when I said offset+bitfield.

> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_ATTR_MSIX_TABLE BIT(0)
> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_ATTR_MSIX_PBA BIT(1)
> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_ATTR_IS_NON_TEE BIT(2)
> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_ATTR_IS_UPDATABLE BIT(3)
> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_ATTR_RANGE_ID GENMASK(31, 16)
> > #define  PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_SIZE (16)
> > #define PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_BASE_SIZE(nr_mmio) (16 + nr_mmio * PCI_TSM_DEVIF_REPORT_MMIO_SIZE)
> > 
> > Any strong feelings one way or the other? I have a mild preference for
> > this offset+bitfields approach.
> 
> 
> My variant is just like this (may be need to put it in the comment):
> 
> tdi_report_header
> tdi_report_mmio_range[]
> tdi_report_footer

Does the kernel have any use for the footer besides conveying it to
userspace?

> imho easier on eyes. I can live with either if the majority votes for it. Thanks.

Aneesh also already has 'structs+bitmask', I will switch to that.