Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1422244
| From | Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros |
| Date | 2016-06-14 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rK22u-BW-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rJV10-4hM-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <rJV10-4hM-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <rK1J7-fP-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Netronome Systems, Ltd. |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 20:53:28 +0200, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 14-06-16 13:44, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > +#ifndef _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> > +#define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> > +
> > +#include <asm/types.h>
> > +#include <linux/bug.h>
> > +#include <linux/log2.h>
> > +
> > +#define _bf_shf(x) (__builtin_ffsll(x) - 1)
> > +
> > +#define _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + const u64 hi = (_mask) + (1ULL << _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + \
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!(_mask) || (hi && !is_power_of_2_u64(hi))); \
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
> > + ~((_mask) >> _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : \
> > + 0); \
> > + })
>
> I am sceptic whether it is useful to have 64-bit used here and there is
> a price to pay on (many) 32-bit architectures for using 64-bit
> operations. Maybe it is not an issue because it is inside BUILD_BUG_ON()
> macro.
It's a trade-off between having a separate set of macros for 32-bit
machines and risking someone potentially loosing cycles when using the
macros in a non-standard way. Note that all 64 bit operations are
performed on the mask which I expect to be compile time constant.
> > +#define FIELD_PUT(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> > + ((u32)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_GET(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> > + (u32)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_PUT64(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _val); \
> > + ((u64)(_val) << _bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
> > + })
> > +
> > +#define FIELD_GET64(_mask, _val) \
> > + ({ \
> > + _BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0); \
> > + (u64)(((_val) & (_mask)) >> _bf_shf(_mask)); \
> > + })
>
> Is there really hardware out there that exposes 64-bit wide hardware
> registers?
I need this for encoding 64-bit wide RISC instructions [1] to be honest.
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/414538
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCHv2 0/2] register-field manipulation macros Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> - 2016-06-14 13:50 +0200
[PATCHv2 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> - 2016-06-14 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> - 2016-06-14 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] add basic register-field manipulation macros Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> - 2016-06-14 21:20 +0200
[PATCHv2 2/2] mt7601u: use linux/bitfield.h Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> - 2016-06-14 13:50 +0200
csiph-web