Re: [v7, net-next 08/10] bng_en: Register rings with the firmware

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 04:11:12PM +0530, Bhargava Chenna Marreddy wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 9:21 PM Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 01:05:03AM +0530, Bhargava Marreddy wrote:
> > > Enable ring functionality by registering RX, AGG, TX, CMPL, and
> > > NQ rings with the firmware. Initialise the doorbells associated
> > > with the rings.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bhargava Marreddy <bhargava.marreddy@broadcom.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Vikas Gupta <vikas.gupta@broadcom.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rajashekar Hudumula <rajashekar.hudumula@broadcom.com>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnge/bnge_db.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnge/bnge_db.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000000..950ed582f1d
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnge/bnge_db.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > +/* Copyright (c) 2025 Broadcom */
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef _BNGE_DB_H_
> > > +#define _BNGE_DB_H_
> > > +
> > > +/* 64-bit doorbell */
> > > +#define DBR_EPOCH_SFT                                        24
> > > +#define DBR_TOGGLE_SFT                                       25
> > > +#define DBR_XID_SFT                                  32
> > > +#define DBR_PATH_L2                                  (0x1ULL << 56)
> > > +#define DBR_VALID                                    (0x1ULL << 58)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_SQ                                  (0x0ULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_SRQ                                 (0x2ULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_CQ                                  (0x4ULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_CQ_ARMALL                           (0x6ULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_NQ                                  (0xaULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_NQ_ARM                                      (0xbULL << 60)
> > > +#define DBR_TYPE_NQ_MASK                             (0xeULL << 60)
> >
> > Perhaps BIT_ULL() and GENMASK_ULL() can be used here?
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion, Simon. Some macros have non-contiguous
> bits, requiring combinations with "|",
> which would make the definitions longer and harder to follow. Since
> these Doorbell Register (DBR) values
> are hardware-specified, I believe it's better to keep them as they
> are. Please let me know if you see any issues.

Thanks, understood.
If you prefer the current approach, that is fine by me.