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

Lucas De Marchi
2023-06-20T17:25:46Z

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.

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
>
>