From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:00:20 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/8] armv7: cache maintenance operations for
 armv7
In-Reply-To: <4D2EFAD2.3070705@free.fr>
References: <1293018898-13253-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>	<1293018898-13253-3-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<4D2805FC.7070200@free.fr> <4D2863D0.2050005@ti.com>
	<4D286F58.9010605@free.fr> <4D2D6F71.1020906@ti.com>
	<4D2DFFB2.5010407@free.fr> <4D2EEA83.2030200@ti.com>
	<4D2EFAD2.3070705@free.fr>
Message-ID: <4D2F0C7C.6030907@ti.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thursday 13 January 2011 06:44 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 13/01/2011 13:05, Aneesh V a ?crit :
>
>>>> What I need is something like below:
>>>>
>>>> #define get_bit_field(nr, start, mask)\
>>>> (((nr) & (mask)) >> (start))
>>>>
>>>> #define set_bit_field(nr, start, mask, val)\
>>>> (nr) = ((nr) & ~(mask)) | (((val) << (start)) & (mask))
>>>>
>>>> Can these go in a generic header? If so, can I add them to
>>>> "include/linux/bitops.h"
>>>
>>> After some more thought, I am wondering if a *generic* field setting and
>>> getting macro is really useful. So far everyone is fine with at most
>>> defining field-specific macros.
>>
>> Is it going to be easy if you have many fields to deal with?
>
> I don't see how the generic macros ease anything. Instead of defining say
>
> #define get_field_F(x) ((x >> F_start) & F_mask)
> #define set_field_F(x,v) { x = (x ~ F_mask ) | (v << F_start) }
>
> You'd have
>
> #define get_field_F(x) get_bit_field(x, F_start, F_mask)
> #define set_field_F(x,v) set_bit_field(x, F_start, F_mask, v);
>
> Which does not seem to bring any simplicity to me.

I wouldn't define get_field_F.
Instead I would just use set_bit_field(x, F_start, F_mask, v) directly
in the code and I have F_start and F_mask defined in the header files
(automatically generated)

Even if it was manual isn't it easier to define just F_start and F_mask
per field than defining a get_field_F per field?

Perhaps my requirement is different. If this scheme is not used by
many, I shall put these macros in OMAP specific headers.

best regards,
Aneesh