[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler

[Gwan-gyeong Mun]

On 10/31/22 7:19 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 21:42:30 -0700, Gwan-gyeong Mun wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>> index 9e9781493025..c588a17f97e9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>> @@ -101,21 +101,16 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>
>>   static void
>>   hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
>> -			  u32 field_msk, int nshift,
>> -			  unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
>> +			  int nshift, unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
>>   {
>> 	u32 nval;
>> -	u32 bits_to_clear;
>> -	u32 bits_to_set;
>>
>> 	/* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
>> 	nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
>>
>> -	bits_to_clear = field_msk;
>> -	bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
>> -
>> 	hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
>> -					    bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
>> +					    PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
>> +					    REG_FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval));
> 
> I registered my objection to this patch already here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/87ilk7pwrw.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com/
> 
> the crux of which is "hwm_field_scale_and_write() pairs with
> hwm_field_read_and_scale() (they are basically a set/get pair) so it is
> desirable they have identical arguments. This patch breaks that symmetry".
> 
> We can merge this patch now but the moment a second caller of
> hwm_field_scale_and_write arrives this patch will need to be reverted.
> 
> I have also posted my preferred way (as I previously indiecated) of fixing
> this issue here (if this needs to be fixed in i915):
> 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/110301/
> 
The given link (https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/110301/) is an 
inline function that reduces the checks of REG_FIELD_PREP() and pursues 
the same functionality.
It's not a good idea to add and use duplicate new inline functions with 
reduced functionality under different names.

+/* FIELD_PREP and REG_FIELD_PREP require a compile time constant mask */
+static u32 hwm_field_prep(u32 mask, u32 val)
+{
+	return (val << __bf_shf(mask)) & mask;
+}
+
  static void
  hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
  				    i915_reg_t reg, u32 clear, u32 set)
@@ -112,7 +118,7 @@  hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, 
i915_reg_t rgadr,
  	nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);

  	bits_to_clear = field_msk;
-	bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
+	bits_to_set = hwm_field_prep(field_msk, nval);

  	hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
  					    bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);


The patch 
(https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/509248/?series=110094&rev=5) 
that fixed the build error in a simplified form was added as there is 
only one place that calls the hwm_field_scale_and_write() function at 
this time.

If more places that use the hwm_field_scale_and_write() function are 
added in the future, how about changing the interface that calls this 
function as Jani previously suggested?

Br,
G.G.

> IMO it would be a mistake to use REG_FIELD_PREP or FIELD_PREP here since
> here the mask comes in as a function argument whereas REG_FIELD_PREP and
> FIELD_PREP require that mask to be a compile time constant.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh