MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211115112000.23693-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <94d3f4e5-a698-134c-8264-55d31d3eafa6@arm.com> <CAHp75VeJ8ZiD=qQVfeahUjGZduFRJJ5683hn8f4810JYEzsCyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YZJxG7JFAfIqr1/f@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAL_JsqJndi-gmenSpPtMVfsb3SrA=w+YBsSh3GigfgXC3rYDeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <71a90592-99bb-13e1-a671-eb19c2dad3da@broadcom.com> <351fa3ec-52fa-58f5-cc57-e92498647d5c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <351fa3ec-52fa-58f5-cc57-e92498647d5c@gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:37:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vd4bUEmneSRPTkz-YhA7GbCx2n_+v4y4kyaw4ZaBCvU_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] PCI: brcmstb: Use BIT() as __GENMASK() is for
 internal use only
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.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>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        =?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 Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:42 AM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/16/21 12:41 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > On 11/16/21 10:20 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> +Marc Z
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 8:39 AM Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> 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 <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)? :-)
> >>>
> >>> 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().
>
> Something like the following maybe? Completely untested as I don't
> believe I have a device with that legacy controller available at the moment:

Since it gets rid of __GENMASK (ab)use, I'm fine to see it applied at
some point.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko