From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753474AbcHQRQL (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:16:11 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:33948 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752163AbcHQRQK (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:16:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160817181109.080edf7a@jkicinski-Precision-T1700> References: <1471360704-10507-1-git-send-email-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <1471360704-10507-2-git-send-email-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <8737m3bsau.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20160817181109.080edf7a@jkicinski-Precision-T1700> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 10:16:08 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hXB1fVzj19QVBboKCt2TWUscmyc Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Kalle Valo , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , David Miller , Linux Wireless List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , dinan.gunawardena@netronome.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:33:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> I'm not a huge fan, since the interface fundamentally seems to be >> oddly designed (why pass in the mask rather than "start bit + >> length"?). > > Would that not require start and length to have separate defines? Yeah. > I assume doing: > > #define REG_BLA_FIELD_FOO 3, 4 > val = FIELD_GET(REG_BLA_FIELD_FOO, reg); > > is not acceptable. Attempts to define a single value brought us to the > shifted mask. Agreed. Maybe the mask with the complexity to then undo it (at compile time) is the better approach. Linus