[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: brcmstb: Use BIT() as __GENMASK() is for internal use only
On 11/16/21 10:20 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Marc Z
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:39 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 04:14:21PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:01 PM Robin Murphy <> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-15 11:20, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>>> Use BIT() as __GENMASK() is for internal use only. The rationale
>>>>> of switching to BIT() is to provide better generated code. The
>>>>> GENMASK() against non-constant numbers may produce an ugly assembler
>>>>> code. On contrary the BIT() is simply converted to corresponding shift
>>>>> operation.
>>>> FWIW, If you care about code quality and want the compiler to do the
>>>> obvious thing, why not specify it as the obvious thing:
>>>> u32 val = ~0 << msi->legacy_shift;
>>> Obvious and buggy (from the C standard point of view)? :-)
>> Forgot to mention that BIT() is also makes it easy to avoid such mistake.
>>>> Personally I don't think that abusing BIT() in the context of setting
>>>> multiple bits is any better than abusing __GENMASK()...
>>> No, BIT() is not abused here, but __GENMASK().
>>> After all it's up to you, folks, consider that as a bug report.
> Couldn't we get rid of legacy_shift entirely if the legacy case sets
> up 'hwirq' as 24-31 rather than 0-7? Though the data for the MSI msg
> uses the hwirq.

I personally find it clearer and easier to reason about with the current
code though I suppose that with an appropriate xlate method we could
sort of set up the hwirq the way we want them to be to avoid any
shifting in brcm_pcie_msi_isr().
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-16 21:42    [W:0.099 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site