intel-gfx.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
To: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] drm/i915/registers: use standard bits.h and bitfield.h macros
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:22:49 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mus3rxpy.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.zpzymk18xaggs7@mwajdecz-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:40:19 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> This is an RFC to get input on how people feel about moving towards
>> using <linux/bits.h> and <linux/bitfield.h> macros for register field
>> definitions and manipulation:
>>
>> * BIT()
>> * GENMASK()
>
> BIT/GENMASK macros assumes 'unsigned long' type (64b) while our registers
> (and some of our temporary variables) are 'unsigned int' (32b).

I don't see a problem with that as long as we stick to unsigned types.

> It was reported [1] that use of plain BIT(0) may cause compilation issues.

That mixes signed and unsigned types.


BR,
Jani.

>
> Michal
>
> [1]  
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-September/176704.html
>
>> * FIELD_GET()
>> * FIELD_PREP()
>
>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-27 11:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-27  9:40 [RFC 0/4] drm/i915/registers: use standard bits.h and bitfield.h macros Jani Nikula
2018-09-27  9:40 ` [RFC 1/4] drm/i915/registers: prefer GENMASK() over hand rolled masks Jani Nikula
2018-09-28  8:34   ` Mika Kuoppala
2018-09-27  9:40 ` [RFC 2/4] drm/i915/registers: prefer BIT() for single bits Jani Nikula
2018-09-27  9:40 ` [RFC 3/4] drm/i915/registers: deprecate _SHIFT in favor of FIELD_GET() and _MASK Jani Nikula
2018-09-27  9:40 ` [RFC 4/4] drm/i915/registers: define field values using FIELD_PREP() Jani Nikula
2018-09-27 10:35   ` Chris Wilson
2018-09-27 11:53     ` Jani Nikula
2018-09-27 12:44       ` Jani Nikula
2018-09-27 12:02     ` Joonas Lahtinen
2018-09-27  9:44 ` [RFC 0/4] drm/i915/registers: use standard bits.h and bitfield.h macros Jani Nikula
2018-09-27 11:09 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2018-09-27 11:22   ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2018-09-27 11:44     ` Jani Nikula
2018-09-27 14:20 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87mus3rxpy.fsf@intel.com \
    --to=jani.nikula@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).