Re: [PATCH v7.1 2/4] gpu: nova-core: bitfield: Move bitfield-specific code from register! into new macro

["Alexandre Courbot" <acourbot@nvidia.com>]

On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 4:39 AM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/16/25 12:34 PM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On Thu Oct 16, 2025 at 9:28 PM CEST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> On Oct 16, 2025, at 1:48 PM, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 11:13:21AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> ...
>> While I'm not super opinionated for general bitfields, for the register!()
>> infrastructure I very much prefer the hi:lo notation, as this is the common
>> notation in datasheets and TRMs.
>> 
>> However, if we use hi:lo, we should use it decending, i.e.:
>> 
>
> Sure, descending works.
>
>> 	bitfield! {
>> 	    struct ControlReg {
>> 	        7:5 state as u8 => State;
>> 	        3:0 mode as u8 ?=> Mode;
>
> And hi:lo matches our HW reference manuals. And if you're dealing
> with bitfields, you are often also dealing with HW, so this is
> a reasonable place in the SW to use hi:lo.

Definitely agree here. The use of `:` is what makes the difference with
the GENMASK macro, which separates its argument with a regular comma.
There is no room for mistaking these with anything else.