On 2016-06-13 15:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> C bitfields are problematic and best avoided. Developers
> interacting with hardware registers find themselves searching
> for easy-to-use alternatives. Common approach is to define
> structures or sets of macros containing mask and shift pair.
> Operations on the register are then performed as follows:
>
> field = (reg >> shift) & mask;
>
> reg &= ~(mask << shift);
> reg |= (field & mask) << shift;
>
> Defining shift and mask separately is tedious. Ivo van Doorn
> came up with an idea of computing them at compilation time
> based on a single shifted mask (later refined by Felix) which
> can be used like this:
>
> #define X_REG_FIELD 0x000ff000
>
> field = FIELD_GET(X_REG_FIELD, reg);
>
> reg &= ~X_REG_FIELD;
> reg |= FIELD_PUT(X_REG_FIELD, field);
>
> FIELD_{GET,PUT} macros take care of finding out what the
> appropriate shift is based on compilation time ffs operation.
>
> GENMASK can be used to define registers (which is usually
> less error-prone and easier to match with datasheets).
>
> This approach is the most convenient I've seen so to limit code
> multiplication let's move the macros to a global header file.
>
> Compared to Felix Fietkau's implementation from mt76 this one
> uses standard Linux and GCC functions such as is_power_of_2()
> and __builtin_ffsll().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com>
> ---
> include/linux/bitfield.h | 58
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/log2.h | 6 +++++
> 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/bitfield.h
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ae2224464523
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Felix Fietkau <n...@openwrt.org>
Please change my email address to n...@nbd.name here
- Felix
