From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06b.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1564233FA
	for <patches@lists.linux.dev>; Wed,  1 Feb 2023 19:35:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;
  d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel;
  t=1675280150; x=1706816150;
  h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references:
   from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
  bh=/Obl8rqfTGH6trUZEs37Lq7tRxm2qrcEOy/7J7nsiCE=;
  b=Zu2In3ZoEL4VyT8aqMTSXGE4kthLT8jWKWExC5FXFwQAlAjeygGbALgi
   ZZPvSXbonUPa8ysl+GQ4JLNCMzX8obrAYqghRNMgmYXtzu2VXybdkBlcc
   r7gmmqx/LiqDHa+daJUa315MmI59Gt8I/HimW67EOJz+COvP/bxZ863IZ
   jV5raNiiaxPSZFtPfeCrm/SAPbIzCqDlmYGTS1bJSXNMUjxz+SZo1enHU
   Tw8XJaIVrFmkWMJTiJJGhumhXQm8WXf/LKo+0kD+9zWjcDkxIDRycYFCw
   UHg6OQj2RKSsLefbLzRGJb75mSsPfzqKWlGP8OHRh43NI8nSvjnVVJxzD
   g==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10608"; a="390643896"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,265,1669104000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="390643896"
Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41])
  by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2023 11:35:49 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10608"; a="838892059"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.97,265,1669104000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="838892059"
Received: from sgkhacha-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.212.227.86]) ([10.212.227.86])
  by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2023 11:35:48 -0800
Message-ID: <aedc760b-ca4d-031d-6797-4f0a1ab2d5d7@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 11:35:48 -0800
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <patches.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:patches+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:patches+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] platform/x86/intel/ifs: Implement Array BIST test
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jithu Joseph <jithu.joseph@intel.com>, hdegoede@redhat.com,
 markgross@kernel.org
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
 dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
 gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, ashok.raj@intel.com,
 tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev,
 ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, thiago.macieira@intel.com,
 athenas.jimenez.gonzalez@intel.com, sohil.mehta@intel.com
References: <20230131234302.3997223-1-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
 <20230131234302.3997223-5-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230131234302.3997223-5-jithu.joseph@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/31/23 15:43, Jithu Joseph wrote:
> +union ifs_array {
> +	u64	data;
> +	struct {
> +		u32	array_bitmask		:32;
> +		u32	array_bank		:16;
> +		u32	rsvd			:15;
> +		u32	ctrl_result		:1;
> +	};
> +};

Why bother with a bitfield?  Just do:

union ifs_array {
	u64	data;
	struct {
		u32	array_bitmask;
		u16	array_bank;
		u16	flags;
	};
};

Then you only need to mask 'ctrl_result' out of flags.  You don't need
any crazy macros.