Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] linux/bits.h: Add fixed-width GENMASK and BIT macros

Andy Shevchenko
2023-06-20T17:41:21Z

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:25:21AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:55:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:47:34PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Jun 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:45:19PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 12 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >> > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 02:25:18PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > >> >> On Fri, 12 May 2023, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 10:14:02PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > >> >> >> Add GENMASK_U32(), GENMASK_U16() and GENMASK_U8() macros to create
> > > >> >> >> masks for fixed-width types and also the corresponding BIT_U32(),
> > > >> >> >> BIT_U16() and BIT_U8().

> > > >> >> > Why?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The main reason is that GENMASK() and BIT() size varies for 32/64 bit
> > > >> >> builds.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > When needed GENMASK_ULL() can be used (with respective castings perhaps)
> > > >> > and BIT_ULL(), no?
> > > >>
> > > >> How does that help with making them the same 32-bit size on both 32 and
> > > >> 64 bit builds?
> > > >
> > > > u32 x = GENMASK();
> > > > u64 y = GENMASK_ULL();
> > > >
> > > > No? Then use in your code either x or y. Note that I assume that the parameters
> > > > to GENMASK*() are built-time constants. Is it the case for you?
> > >
> > > What's wrong with wanting to define macros with specific size, depending
> > > on e.g. hardware registers instead of build size?
> >
> > Nothing, but I think the problem is smaller than it's presented.
>
> not sure about big/small problem you are talking about. It's a problem
> for when the *device* register is a 32b fixed width, which is
> independent from the CPU you are running on. We also have registers that
> are u16 and u64. Having fixed-width GENMASK and BIT helps avoiding
> mistakes like below. Just to use one example, the diff below builds
> fine on my 64b machine, yet it's obviously wrong:
>
> $ git diff diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c
> index 0b414eae1683..692a0ad9a768 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c
> @@ -261,8 +261,8 @@ static u32 rw_with_mcr_steering_fw(struct intel_gt *gt,
> * No need to save old steering reg value.
> */
> intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore, MTL_MCR_SELECTOR,
> - REG_FIELD_PREP(MTL_MCR_GROUPID, group) |
> - REG_FIELD_PREP(MTL_MCR_INSTANCEID, instance) |
> + FIELD_PREP(MTL_MCR_GROUPID, group) |
> + FIELD_PREP(MTL_MCR_INSTANCEID, instance) |
> (rw_flag == FW_REG_READ ? GEN11_MCR_MULTICAST : 0));
> } else if (GRAPHICS_VER(uncore->i915) >= 11) {
> mcr_mask = GEN11_MCR_SLICE_MASK | GEN11_MCR_SUBSLICE_MASK;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
> index 718cb2c80f79..c42bc2900c6a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_regs.h
> @@ -80,8 +80,8 @@
> #define GEN11_MCR_SLICE_MASK GEN11_MCR_SLICE(0xf)
> #define GEN11_MCR_SUBSLICE(subslice) (((subslice) & 0x7) << 24)
> #define GEN11_MCR_SUBSLICE_MASK GEN11_MCR_SUBSLICE(0x7)
> -#define MTL_MCR_GROUPID REG_GENMASK(11, 8)
> -#define MTL_MCR_INSTANCEID REG_GENMASK(3, 0)
> +#define MTL_MCR_GROUPID GENMASK(32, 8)
> +#define MTL_MCR_INSTANCEID GENMASK(3, 0)
> #define IPEIR_I965 _MMIO(0x2064)
> #define IPEHR_I965 _MMIO(0x2068)
>
> If the driver didn't support 32b CPUs, this would even go unnoticed.

So, what does prevent you from using GENMASK_ULL()?

Another point, you may teach GENMASK() to issue a warning if hi and/or lo
bigger than BITS_PER_LONG.

I still don't see the usefulness of that churn.

> Lucas De Marchi
>
> > And there are already header for bitfields with a lot of helpers
> > for (similar) cases if not yours.
> >
> > > What would you use for printk format if you wanted to to print
> > > GENMASK()?
> >
> > %lu, no?

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko