From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, hannes@stressinduktion.org, nbd@nbd.name,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvalo@codeaurora.org,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:18:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160614201815.0e0c384c@jkicinski-Precision-T1700> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <576052A7.2030503@broadcom.com>
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:53:28 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 14-06-16 13:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > +#ifndef _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> > +#define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> > +
> > +#include <asm/types.h>
> > +#include <linux/bug.h>
> > +#include <linux/log2.h>
> > +
> > +#define _bf_shf(x) (__builtin_ffsll(x) - 1)
> > +
> > +#define _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + const u64 hi = (_mask) + (1ULL << _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + \
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!(_mask) || (hi && !is_power_of_2_u64(hi))); \
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
> > + ~((_mask) >> _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : \
> > + 0); \
> > + })
>
> I am sceptic whether it is useful to have 64-bit used here and there is
> a price to pay on (many) 32-bit architectures for using 64-bit
> operations. Maybe it is not an issue because it is inside BUILD_BUG_ON()
> macro.
It's a trade-off between having a separate set of macros for 32-bit
machines and risking someone potentially loosing cycles when using the
macros in a non-standard way. Note that all 64 bit operations are
performed on the mask which I expect to be compile time constant.
> > +#define FIELD_PUT(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> > + ((u32)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_GET(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> > + (u32)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_PUT64(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> > + ((u64)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_GET64(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> > + (u64)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + })
>
> Is there really hardware out there that exposes 64-bit wide hardware
> registers?
I need this for encoding 64-bit wide RISC instructions [1] to be honest.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/414538
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-14 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-14 11:44 [PATCHv2 0/2] register-field manipulation macros Jakub Kicinski
2016-06-14 11:44 ` [PATCHv2 1/2] add basic " Jakub Kicinski
2016-06-14 18:53 ` Arend van Spriel
2016-06-14 19:18 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2016-06-14 11:44 ` [PATCHv2 2/2] mt7601u: use linux/bitfield.h Jakub Kicinski
2016-06-18 22:08 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160614201815.0e0c384c@jkicinski-Precision-T1700 \
--to=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nbd@nbd.name \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox