Re: [PATCH 01/20] bitfield: introduce HWORD_UPDATE bitfield macros

Yury Norov
2025-06-13T12:28:54Z

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:55:54PM +0200, Nicolas Frattaroli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Friday, 13 June 2025 10:51:15 Central European Summer Time Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2025, Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com> wrote:
> > > Hardware of various vendors, but very notably Rockchip, often uses
> > > 32-bit registers where the upper 16-bit half of the register is a
> > > write-enable mask for the lower half.
> > >
> > > This type of hardware setup allows for more granular concurrent register
> > > write access.
> > >
> > > Over the years, many drivers have hand-rolled their own version of this
> > > macro, usually without any checks, often called something like
> > > HIWORD_UPDATE or FIELD_PREP_HIWORD, commonly with slightly different
> > > semantics between them.
> > >
> > > Clearly there is a demand for such a macro, and thus the demand should
> > > be satisfied in a common header file.
> > >
> > > Add two macros: HWORD_UPDATE, and HWORD_UPDATE_CONST. The latter is a
> > > version that can be used in initializers, like FIELD_PREP_CONST. The
> > > macro names are chosen to not clash with any potential other macros that
> > > drivers may already have implemented themselves, while retaining a
> > > familiar name.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/bitfield.h | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > > index 6d9a53db54b66c0833973c880444bd289d9667b1..b90d88db7405f95b78cdd6f3426263086bab5aa6 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> > > #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> > >
> > > #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> > > +#include <linux/limits.h>
> > > #include <linux/typecheck.h>
> > > #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > >
> > > @@ -142,6 +143,52 @@
> > > (((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask)) \
> > > )
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * HWORD_UPDATE() - prepare a bitfield element with a mask in the upper half
> > > + * @_mask: shifted mask defining the field's length and position
> > > + * @_val: value to put in the field
> > > + *
> > > + * HWORD_UPDATE() masks and shifts up the value, as well as bitwise ORs the
> > > + * result with the mask shifted up by 16.
> > > + *
> > > + * This is useful for a common design of hardware registers where the upper
> > > + * 16-bit half of a 32-bit register is used as a write-enable mask. In such a
> > > + * register, a bit in the lower half is only updated if the corresponding bit
> > > + * in the upper half is high.
> > > + */
> > > +#define HWORD_UPDATE(_mask, _val) \
> > > + ({ \
> > > + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, ((u16) 0U), _val, \
> > > + "HWORD_UPDATE: "); \
> > > + (((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask)) | \
> > > + ((_mask) << 16); \
> > > + })
> >
> > i915 uses something like this for a few registers too, with the name
> > _MASKED_FIELD(). I think we could use it.
> >
> > I do think this is clearly an extension of FIELD_PREP(), though, and
> > should be be named similarly, instead of the completely deviating
> > HWORD_UPDATE().
> >
> > Also, we recently got GENMASK() versions with sizes, GENMASK_U16()
> > etc. so I find it inconsistent to denote size here with HWORD.
> >
> > FIELD_PREP_MASKED_U16? MASKED_FIELD_PREP_U16? Something along those
> > lines?
>
> Yeah, I agree the name could be better. I used HWORD_UPDATE as Yury and
> I couldn't come up with a name we liked either, and Yury suggested not
> breaking from what's already there too much. I do think making the name
> more field-adjacent would be good though, as well as somehow indicating
> that it is 16 bits of data.

I suggested a wonderful name that explains everything. Didn't I? It
has the only problem - it's 25 chars long. :)

So yeah, let's think once more about a better _short_ name, or just
stick to the existing naming scheme.

> > And perhaps that (and more potential users) could persuade Jakub that
> > this is not that weird after all?
>
> I will operate under the assumption that Jakub's opinion will not change
> as he ignored the commit message that talks about multiple vendors,
> ignored the cover letter that talks about multiple vendors, and ignored
> my e-mail where I once again made it clear to him that it's multiple
> vendors, and still claims it's a Rockchip specific convention.

As far as I understood, he concerns not about number of drivers that
opencode HIWORD_UPDATE(), but that this macro is not generic enough
to live in bitfield.h. And it's a valid concern - I doubt it will
be helpful somewhere in core and arch files.

I think that creating a separate header like hw_bitfield.h, or hw_bits.h
aimed to absorb common helpers of that sort, would help to reach the
strategic goal - decreasing the level of code duplication in the driver
swamp.

Thanks,
Yury