From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3906DC47255 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2F420720 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Ms5aX7PK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729546AbgEKKqh (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2020 06:46:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60978 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728209AbgEKKqh (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 May 2020 06:46:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x544.google.com (mail-ed1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::544]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD250C061A0C for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 03:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x544.google.com with SMTP id g9so650434edr.8 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 03:46:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=urJaoEU+KjNM8t/1W6rOD5GSwCsLZCnOcRW+jTf5YXE=; b=Ms5aX7PKhyl1ejvyS3mnFs2nrNI7o9KLkrVFTPKNqwRnap699bfDKc9D6s/vSUipxY FcAiZPLw3t+NcJaMlBhdvTCt08tF4hqsZhyBhh1YG7SxLRFfA1Zu3YEKhkCMUMYPxI6H 9zmn6kQqdvWEwZ0ZGT0oWX1/cOHDbzocBIVHwwX2eKzRjLVvU2Kff77bPXeRxVkHcwq3 TGbBnN168spbj604i2YNRNCmZ3LREk8XX577TjlA6Ktvvs4/z5JzGIpmPRvykVGXAmxd C1moJkh5Bs777C9cgkrHv+RmbCaoHSDa24U5ntO2hDwx4OshBUHLh3W31g1z1ofboKB8 BStg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=urJaoEU+KjNM8t/1W6rOD5GSwCsLZCnOcRW+jTf5YXE=; b=lOmyHjGJiiFYyyt9KV15l9QdLPUEDYoPk+lQKu3b4LAD9JkTgQkE0WKOlxv56gR4ZJ s5tw8fZtGtWBgbWw+J8vcCqUmaWC+ZmUHjvXfK0aEUE37xGArXG0wy0djQVI4k0UckT3 DvxkAi6gqeohG3nyLcx37NvNRVnKcsEsA7IJ/a6UpbempuL+Z687IvHyXqhYl4SfXO1N 7YOzFx2fGoHdIXzh3gD+Q9zNz13JhNwsnLCFs+Bo8Y7mHId98hoFeb5JE6hjWQ/d9sbx 8G+GFmT6spWWnidNUqAEaHzjB3AQIXK145FvEzsamFRyqOWiMbBLdUOtpIIdP/+axaax WcGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuZCElcUrpe1VhSr3MCWUhJW2Lm65isy9kgXvgvqFuBVTMuijOQa RB9I1lyFo54LB10AsyjL+jeyrQKB5w+59f+4l/0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKHPD8WQl5PzmD5IhowpK2bhwpFyWu9KvvRIuxOVec1ue35BXCcqWpfO0EbdFjdmjdqBSG4tdgoyLg8B1+ZCyw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1a46:: with SMTP id bf6mr12476835edb.44.1589193994538; Mon, 11 May 2020 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1588761371-9078-1-git-send-email-amittomer25@gmail.com> <1588761371-9078-2-git-send-email-amittomer25@gmail.com> <20200510155159.GA27924@Mani-XPS-13-9360> In-Reply-To: <20200510155159.GA27924@Mani-XPS-13-9360> From: Amit Tomer Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 16:15:57 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/8] dmaengine: Actions: get rid of bit fields from dma descriptor To: Manivannan Sadhasivam Cc: Andre Przywara , vkoul@kernel.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= , dan.j.williams@intel.com, cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel , linux-actions@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: dmaengine-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: dmaengine@vger.kernel.org Hi Thanks for the reply. > I'm in favor of getting rid of bitfields due to its not so defined way of > working (and forgive me for using it in first place) but I don't quite like > the current approach. Because , its less readable the way we are writing to those different fields ? But this can be made more verbose by adding some comments around . > Rather I'd like to have custom bitmasks (S900/S700/S500?) for writing to those > fields. > I think S900 and S500 are same as pointed out by Cristian. and I didn't get by creating custom bitmasks for it ? Did you mean function like: lli->hw[OWL_DMADESC_FLEN]= llc_hw_FLEN(len, FCNT_VALUE, FCNT_SHIFT); Thanks -Amit