MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211115112000.23693-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <94d3f4e5-a698-134c-8264-55d31d3eafa6@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <94d3f4e5-a698-134c-8264-55d31d3eafa6@arm.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Nov 2021 16:14:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VeJ8ZiD=qQVfeahUjGZduFRJJ5683hn8f4810JYEzsCyw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: brcmstb: Use BIT() as __GENMASK() is for
 internal use only
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        linux-rpi-kernel <linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:01 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> 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)? :-)

> 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.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko