| Message ID | cover.1593243079.git.syednwaris@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro | expand |
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:40 PM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Linus, > > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? > > This patchset introduces a new generic version of for_each_set_clump. > The previous version of for_each_set_clump8 used a fixed size 8-bit > clump, but the new generic version can work with clump of any size but > less than or equal to BITS_PER_LONG. The patchset utilizes the new macro > in several GPIO drivers. > > The earlier 8-bit for_each_set_clump8 facilitated a > for-loop syntax that iterates over a memory region entire groups of set > bits at a time. > > For example, suppose you would like to iterate over a 32-bit integer 8 > bits at a time, skipping over 8-bit groups with no set bit, where > XXXXXXXX represents the current 8-bit group: > > Example: 10111110 00000000 11111111 00110011 > First loop: 10111110 00000000 11111111 XXXXXXXX > Second loop: 10111110 00000000 XXXXXXXX 00110011 > Third loop: XXXXXXXX 00000000 11111111 00110011 > > Each iteration of the loop returns the next 8-bit group that has at > least one set bit. > > But with the new for_each_set_clump the clump size can be different from 8 bits. > Moreover, the clump can be split at word boundary in situations where word > size is not multiple of clump size. Following are examples showing the working > of new macro for clump sizes of 24 bits and 6 bits. > > Example 1: > clump size: 24 bits, Number of clumps (or ports): 10 > bitmap stores the bit information from where successive clumps are retrieved. > > /* bitmap memory region */ > 0x00aa0000ff000000; /* Most significant bits */ > 0xaaaaaa0000ff0000; > 0x000000aa000000aa; > 0xbbbbabcdeffedcba; /* Least significant bits */ > > Different iterations of for_each_set_clump:- > 'offset' is the bit position and 'clump' is the 24 bit clump from the > above bitmap. > Iteration first: offset: 0 clump: 0xfedcba > Iteration second: offset: 24 clump: 0xabcdef > Iteration third: offset: 48 clump: 0xaabbbb > Iteration fourth: offset: 96 clump: 0xaa > Iteration fifth: offset: 144 clump: 0xff > Iteration sixth: offset: 168 clump: 0xaaaaaa > Iteration seventh: offset: 216 clump: 0xff > Loop breaks because in the end the remaining bits (0x00aa) size was less > than clump size of 24 bits. > > In above example it can be seen that in iteration third, the 24 bit clump > that was retrieved was split between bitmap[0] and bitmap[1]. This example > also shows that 24 bit zeroes if present in between, were skipped (preserving > the previous for_each_set_macro8 behaviour). > > Example 2: > clump size = 6 bits, Number of clumps (or ports) = 3. > > /* bitmap memory region */ > 0x00aa0000ff000000; /* Most significant bits */ > 0xaaaaaa0000ff0000; > 0x0f00000000000000; > 0x0000000000000ac0; /* Least significant bits */ > > Different iterations of for_each_set_clump: > 'offset' is the bit position and 'clump' is the 6 bit clump from the > above bitmap. > Iteration first: offset: 6 clump: 0x2b > Loop breaks because 6 * 3 = 18 bits traversed in bitmap. > Here 6 * 3 is clump size * no. of clumps. > > Changes in v9: > - [Patch 4/4]: Remove looping of 'for_each_set_clump' and instead process two > halves of a 64-bit bitmap separately or individually. Use normal spin_lock > call for second inner lock. And take the spin_lock_init call outside the 'if' > condition in the probe function of driver. > > Changes in v8: > - [Patch 2/4]: Minor change: Use '__initdata' for correct section mismatch > in 'clump_test_data' array. > > Changes in v7: > - [Patch 2/4]: Minor changes: Use macro 'DECLARE_BITMAP()' and split 'struct' > definition and test data. > > Changes in v6: > - [Patch 2/4]: Make 'for loop' inside test_for_each_set_clump more > succinct. > > Changes in v5: > - [Patch 4/4]: Minor change: Hardcode value for better code readability. > > Changes in v4: > - [Patch 2/4]: Use 'for' loop in test function of for_each_set_clump. > - [Patch 3/4]: Minor change: Inline value for better code readability. > - [Patch 4/4]: Minor change: Inline value for better code readability. > > Changes in v3: > - [Patch 3/4]: Change datatype of some variables from u64 to unsigned long > in function thunderx_gpio_set_multiple. > > CHanges in v2: > - [Patch 2/4]: Unify different tests for 'for_each_set_clump'. Pass test data as > function parameters. > - [Patch 2/4]: Remove unnecessary bitmap_zero calls. > > Syed Nayyar Waris (4): > bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro > lib/test_bitmap.c: Add for_each_set_clump test cases > gpio: thunderx: Utilize for_each_set_clump macro > gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and _set_value. > > drivers/gpio/gpio-thunderx.c | 11 ++- > drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c | 66 +++++++------- > include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 19 ++++ > include/linux/bitmap.h | 61 +++++++++++++ > include/linux/bitops.h | 13 +++ > lib/find_bit.c | 14 +++ > lib/test_bitmap.c | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 7 files changed, 292 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: b3a9e3b9622ae10064826dccb4f7a52bd88c7407 > -- > 2.26.2 > Hi Andrew, Linus What do you think about this patchset on 'for_each_set_clump' ? if there's anything else you think that should be changed in this, or if this version looks good to you to pick up, kindly, let me know. Regards Syed Nayyar Waris
Hi Syed, sorry for taking so long. I was on vacation and a bit snowed under by work. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? I have applied the patches to an immutable branch and pushed to kernelorg for testing (autobuilders will play with it I hope). If all works fine I will merge this into my devel branch for v5.9. It would be desirable if Andrew gave his explicit ACK on it too. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 6:19 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Syed, > > sorry for taking so long. I was on vacation and a bit snowed > under by work. > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? > > I have applied the patches to an immutable branch and pushed > to kernelorg for testing (autobuilders will play with it I hope). > > If all works fine I will merge this into my devel branch for v5.9. > > It would be desirable if Andrew gave his explicit ACK on it too. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij Hi Linus, As a reminder, I would like to point out about the 'for_each_set_clump' patchset. If it's alright and if anything is needed to take it further so that it is finally accepted. Regards Syed Nayyar Waris
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > Hi Syed, > > sorry for taking so long. I was on vacation and a bit snowed > under by work. > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? > > I have applied the patches to an immutable branch and pushed > to kernelorg for testing (autobuilders will play with it I hope). > > If all works fine I will merge this into my devel branch for v5.9. > > It would be desirable if Andrew gave his explicit ACK on it too. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij Hi Linus, What's the name of the branch with these patches on kernelorg; I'm having trouble finding it? Btw, I'm CCing Andrew as well here because I notice him missing from the CC list earlier for this patchset. Thanks, William Breathitt Gray
On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:54 AM William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > Hi Syed, > > > > sorry for taking so long. I was on vacation and a bit snowed > > under by work. > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > > > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? > > > > I have applied the patches to an immutable branch and pushed > > to kernelorg for testing (autobuilders will play with it I hope). > > > > If all works fine I will merge this into my devel branch for v5.9. > > > > It would be desirable if Andrew gave his explicit ACK on it too. > > > > Yours, > > Linus Walleij > > Hi Linus, > > What's the name of the branch with these patches on kernelorg; I'm > having trouble finding it? > > Btw, I'm CCing Andrew as well here because I notice him missing from the > CC list earlier for this patchset. IIRC there were complaints from the zeroday build robot so I dropped the branch and I am still waiting for a fixed up patch series. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:45:18PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:54 AM William Breathitt Gray > <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > Hi Syed, > > > > > > sorry for taking so long. I was on vacation and a bit snowed > > > under by work. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like > > > > to pick it up through your GPIO tree? > > > > > > I have applied the patches to an immutable branch and pushed > > > to kernelorg for testing (autobuilders will play with it I hope). > > > > > > If all works fine I will merge this into my devel branch for v5.9. > > > > > > It would be desirable if Andrew gave his explicit ACK on it too. > > > > > > Yours, > > > Linus Walleij > > > > Hi Linus, > > > > What's the name of the branch with these patches on kernelorg; I'm > > having trouble finding it? > > > > Btw, I'm CCing Andrew as well here because I notice him missing from the > > CC list earlier for this patchset. > > IIRC there were complaints from the zeroday build robot so I > dropped the branch and I am still waiting for a fixed up patch > series. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij My apologies, I wasn't aware a build error was reported. I'll be happy to help address the issue with Syed, but I can't seem to find a copy of the message on <https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/27/107> or my email logs. Do you have a link available to the zeroday build log? Thanks, William Breathitt Gray
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:09 PM William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:45:18PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 12, 2020 at 12:54 AM William Breathitt Gray > > <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:49:35PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:10 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote: ... > > > What's the name of the branch with these patches on kernelorg; I'm > > > having trouble finding it? > > > > > > Btw, I'm CCing Andrew as well here because I notice him missing from the > > > CC list earlier for this patchset. > > > > IIRC there were complaints from the zeroday build robot so I > > dropped the branch and I am still waiting for a fixed up patch > > series. > My apologies, I wasn't aware a build error was reported. I'll be happy > to help address the issue with Syed, but I can't seem to find a copy of > the message on <https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/27/107> or my email logs. > Do you have a link available to the zeroday build log? Time to open lore.kernel.org? [1][2] Linus, are you referencing to [3]? It was fixed in GENMASK() implementation some time ago. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1593243079.git.syednwaris@gmail.com/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1592224128.git.syednwaris@gmail.com/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202006171559.JSbGJXNw%25lkp@intel.com/
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:14 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > Linus, are you referencing to [3]? It was fixed in GENMASK() > implementation some time ago. > [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202006171559.JSbGJXNw%25lkp@intel.com/ Yup. I tried to apply the patches again now to test it but now patch 2 needs to be rebased. Sorry for all the trouble! Syed can you rebase the patch set on v5.9-rc1 and resend as v10? Yours, Linus Walleij
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:59 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:14 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Linus, are you referencing to [3]? It was fixed in GENMASK() > > implementation some time ago. > > [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202006171559.JSbGJXNw%25lkp@intel.com/ > > Yup. > > I tried to apply the patches again now to test it but now patch 2 > needs to be rebased. > > Sorry for all the trouble! > > Syed can you rebase the patch set on v5.9-rc1 and resend as v10? Sure Linus. I will send it as soon as possible. Thanks Syed Nayyar Waris
Hello Linus, Since this patchset primarily affects GPIO drivers, would you like to pick it up through your GPIO tree? This patchset introduces a new generic version of for_each_set_clump. The previous version of for_each_set_clump8 used a fixed size 8-bit clump, but the new generic version can work with clump of any size but less than or equal to BITS_PER_LONG. The patchset utilizes the new macro in several GPIO drivers. The earlier 8-bit for_each_set_clump8 facilitated a for-loop syntax that iterates over a memory region entire groups of set bits at a time. For example, suppose you would like to iterate over a 32-bit integer 8 bits at a time, skipping over 8-bit groups with no set bit, where XXXXXXXX represents the current 8-bit group: Example: 10111110 00000000 11111111 00110011 First loop: 10111110 00000000 11111111 XXXXXXXX Second loop: 10111110 00000000 XXXXXXXX 00110011 Third loop: XXXXXXXX 00000000 11111111 00110011 Each iteration of the loop returns the next 8-bit group that has at least one set bit. But with the new for_each_set_clump the clump size can be different from 8 bits. Moreover, the clump can be split at word boundary in situations where word size is not multiple of clump size. Following are examples showing the working of new macro for clump sizes of 24 bits and 6 bits. Example 1: clump size: 24 bits, Number of clumps (or ports): 10 bitmap stores the bit information from where successive clumps are retrieved. /* bitmap memory region */ 0x00aa0000ff000000; /* Most significant bits */ 0xaaaaaa0000ff0000; 0x000000aa000000aa; 0xbbbbabcdeffedcba; /* Least significant bits */ Different iterations of for_each_set_clump:- 'offset' is the bit position and 'clump' is the 24 bit clump from the above bitmap. Iteration first: offset: 0 clump: 0xfedcba Iteration second: offset: 24 clump: 0xabcdef Iteration third: offset: 48 clump: 0xaabbbb Iteration fourth: offset: 96 clump: 0xaa Iteration fifth: offset: 144 clump: 0xff Iteration sixth: offset: 168 clump: 0xaaaaaa Iteration seventh: offset: 216 clump: 0xff Loop breaks because in the end the remaining bits (0x00aa) size was less than clump size of 24 bits. In above example it can be seen that in iteration third, the 24 bit clump that was retrieved was split between bitmap[0] and bitmap[1]. This example also shows that 24 bit zeroes if present in between, were skipped (preserving the previous for_each_set_macro8 behaviour). Example 2: clump size = 6 bits, Number of clumps (or ports) = 3. /* bitmap memory region */ 0x00aa0000ff000000; /* Most significant bits */ 0xaaaaaa0000ff0000; 0x0f00000000000000; 0x0000000000000ac0; /* Least significant bits */ Different iterations of for_each_set_clump: 'offset' is the bit position and 'clump' is the 6 bit clump from the above bitmap. Iteration first: offset: 6 clump: 0x2b Loop breaks because 6 * 3 = 18 bits traversed in bitmap. Here 6 * 3 is clump size * no. of clumps. Changes in v9: - [Patch 4/4]: Remove looping of 'for_each_set_clump' and instead process two halves of a 64-bit bitmap separately or individually. Use normal spin_lock call for second inner lock. And take the spin_lock_init call outside the 'if' condition in the probe function of driver. Changes in v8: - [Patch 2/4]: Minor change: Use '__initdata' for correct section mismatch in 'clump_test_data' array. Changes in v7: - [Patch 2/4]: Minor changes: Use macro 'DECLARE_BITMAP()' and split 'struct' definition and test data. Changes in v6: - [Patch 2/4]: Make 'for loop' inside test_for_each_set_clump more succinct. Changes in v5: - [Patch 4/4]: Minor change: Hardcode value for better code readability. Changes in v4: - [Patch 2/4]: Use 'for' loop in test function of for_each_set_clump. - [Patch 3/4]: Minor change: Inline value for better code readability. - [Patch 4/4]: Minor change: Inline value for better code readability. Changes in v3: - [Patch 3/4]: Change datatype of some variables from u64 to unsigned long in function thunderx_gpio_set_multiple. CHanges in v2: - [Patch 2/4]: Unify different tests for 'for_each_set_clump'. Pass test data as function parameters. - [Patch 2/4]: Remove unnecessary bitmap_zero calls. Syed Nayyar Waris (4): bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro lib/test_bitmap.c: Add for_each_set_clump test cases gpio: thunderx: Utilize for_each_set_clump macro gpio: xilinx: Utilize generic bitmap_get_value and _set_value. drivers/gpio/gpio-thunderx.c | 11 ++- drivers/gpio/gpio-xilinx.c | 66 +++++++------- include/asm-generic/bitops/find.h | 19 ++++ include/linux/bitmap.h | 61 +++++++++++++ include/linux/bitops.h | 13 +++ lib/find_bit.c | 14 +++ lib/test_bitmap.c | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 292 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) base-commit: b3a9e3b9622ae10064826dccb4f7a52bd88c7407