[PATCH v2 2/3] soundwire: SDCA: add helper macro to access controls

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

>>>> + *	25		0 (Reserved)
>>>> + *	24:22		Function Number [2:0]
>>>> + *	21		Entity[6]
>>>> + *	20:19		Control Selector[5:4]
>>>> + *	18		0 (Reserved)
>>>> + *	17:15		Control Number[5:3]
>>>> + *	14		Next
>>>> + *	13		MBQ
>>>> + *	12:7		Entity[5:0]
>>>> + *	6:3		Control Selector[3:0]
>>>> + *	2:0		Control Number[2:0]
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#define SDW_SDCA_CTL(fun, ent, ctl, ch)						\
>>>> +	(BIT(30)							|	\
>>>
>>> Programmatically this is fine, but then since we are defining for the
>>> description above, IMO it would actually make sense for this to be defined
>>> as FIELD_PREP:
>>>
>>>           FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(30, 26), 1)
>>>
>>> or better
>>>
>>>           u32_encode_bits(GENMASK(30, 26), 1)
>>>
>>>> +	FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(24, 22), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(2, 0), (fun)))	|	\
>>>
>>> Why not use u32_encode_bits(GENMASK(24, 22), (fun)) instead for this and
>>> below?
>>
>> Because your comment for the v1 review was to use FIELD_PREP/FIELD_GET, and
>> your other patches for bitfield access only use FIELD_PREP/FIELD_GET.
> 
> yes and looking at this, I feel u32_encode_bits(GENMASK(24, 22), (fun))
> would look better than FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(24, 22), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(2, 0), (fun)))
> 
> Do you agree?

The Function (fun) case is the easy one: the value is not split in two.

But look at the entity case, it's split in two:

FIELD_PREP(BIT(21), FIELD_GET(BIT(6), (ent)))			FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(12, 
7), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(5, 0), (ent)))

same for control

FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(20, 19), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(5, 4), (ctl)))	|	
FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(6, 3), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(3, 0), (ctl)))	|	

and same for channel number

FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(17, 15), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(5, 3), (ch)))	|	
FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(2, 0), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(2, 0), (ch))))

I don't see how we can avoid using the FIELD_GET to extract the relevant 
bits from entity, control, channel number values.

Or I am missing your point completely.


>>> And while at it, consider defining masks for various fields rather than
>>> using numbers in GENMASK() above, that would look better, be more
>>> readable and people can reuse it.
>>
>> Actually on this one I disagree. These fields are not intended to be used by
>> anyone, the goal is precisely to hide them behind regmap, and the use of raw
>> numbers makes it easier to cross-check the documentation and the code.
>> Adding a separate set of definitions would not increase readability.
> 
> Which one would you prefer:
> 
>          #define SDCA_FUN_MASK           GENMASK(24, 22)
> 
>          foo |= u32_encode_bits(SDCA_FUN_MASK, fun)
> 
> Or the one proposed...?

Same as above, let's see what this does with the control case where we'd 
need to have four definitions:

#define SDCA_CONTROL_DEST_MASK1 GENMASK(20, 19)
#define SDCA_CONTROL_ORIG_MASK1 GENMASK(5, 4)
#define SDCA_CONTROL_DEST_MASK2 GENMASK(6, 3)
#define SDCA_CONTROL_ORIG_MASK2 GENMASK(3, 0)

And the code would look like

foo |= u32_encode_bits(SDCA_CONTROL_DEST_MASK1, 
FIELD_GET(SDCA_CONTROL_ORIG_MASK1, fun));
foo |= u32_encode_bits(SDCA_CONTROL_DEST_MASK2, 
FIELD_GET(SDCA_CONTROL_ORIG_MASK2, fun));

The original suggestion was:

FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(20, 19), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(5, 4), (ctl)))	|	
FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(6, 3), FIELD_GET(GENMASK(3, 0), (ctl)))	|	

I prefer the original... Adding these defines doesn't really add value 
because
a) the values will not be reused anywhere else.
b) we need 12 of those defines
b) we need a prefix for those defines which makes the code heavier