(Resending due to some commit message mistakes (missing SOB etc). Thanks!).

These patches implement the initial refactoring and few improvements to the
register and bitfield macros. Rebased on drm-rust-next.

Main difference from the previous series [1] is dropped the moving out of
nova-core pending BoundedInt changes:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251003154748.1687160-1-joelagnelf@nvidia.com/
Other than that, added tags, resolved conflict with kernel::fmt changes and
rebased on drm-rust-next.

Alexandre Courbot (1):
  gpu: nova-core: register: use field type for Into implementation

Joel Fernandes (3):
  gpu: nova-core: bitfield: Move bitfield-specific code from register!
    into new macro
  gpu: nova-core: bitfield: Add support for different storage widths
  gpu: nova-core: bitfield: Add support for custom visiblity

 drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitfield.rs    | 333 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/gpu/nova-core/falcon.rs      |  38 ++-
 drivers/gpu/nova-core/nova_core.rs   |   3 +
 drivers/gpu/nova-core/regs/macros.rs | 259 +--------------------
 4 files changed, 373 insertions(+), 260 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/nova-core/bitfield.rs


base-commit: 1d5cffebd930d61588c32198f85fbe541ab97b8f
-- 
2.34.1

On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 12:13 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> (Resending due to some commit message mistakes (missing SOB etc). Thanks!).
>
> These patches implement the initial refactoring and few improvements to the
> register and bitfield macros. Rebased on drm-rust-next.
>
> Main difference from the previous series [1] is dropped the moving out of
> nova-core pending BoundedInt changes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251003154748.1687160-1-joelagnelf@nvidia.com/
> Other than that, added tags, resolved conflict with kernel::fmt changes and
> rebased on drm-rust-next.

Thanks, this version is looking pretty good, and works as intended.

I plan on pushing these 4 patches soonish after fixing the line length
issues and the other few problems reported by checkpatch.

Danilo, please let me know if you think this is premature, but imho it
is good to set this part in stone to avoid merge conflicts with future
patches that will want to modify the register macro.

On 10/18/25 3:41 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 12:13 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> (Resending due to some commit message mistakes (missing SOB etc). Thanks!).
>>
>> These patches implement the initial refactoring and few improvements to the
>> register and bitfield macros. Rebased on drm-rust-next.
>>
>> Main difference from the previous series [1] is dropped the moving out of
>> nova-core pending BoundedInt changes:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251003154748.1687160-1-joelagnelf@nvidia.com/
>> Other than that, added tags, resolved conflict with kernel::fmt changes and
>> rebased on drm-rust-next.
> 
> Thanks, this version is looking pretty good, and works as intended.
> 
> I plan on pushing these 4 patches soonish after fixing the line length
> issues and the other few problems reported by checkpatch.
> 
> Danilo, please let me know if you think this is premature, but imho it
> is good to set this part in stone to avoid merge conflicts with future
> patches that will want to modify the register macro.

SGTM, we can keep discussing the hi:lo ascending / descending topic for
nova-core independently.

However, for the sample code that, eventually, we'll move out of nova-core, we
should stick to what's common.

With that,

Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

On Tue Oct 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM JST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 10/18/25 3:41 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Fri Oct 17, 2025 at 12:13 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> (Resending due to some commit message mistakes (missing SOB etc). Thanks!).
>>>
>>> These patches implement the initial refactoring and few improvements to the
>>> register and bitfield macros. Rebased on drm-rust-next.
>>>
>>> Main difference from the previous series [1] is dropped the moving out of
>>> nova-core pending BoundedInt changes:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251003154748.1687160-1-joelagnelf@nvidia.com/
>>> Other than that, added tags, resolved conflict with kernel::fmt changes and
>>> rebased on drm-rust-next.
>> 
>> Thanks, this version is looking pretty good, and works as intended.
>> 
>> I plan on pushing these 4 patches soonish after fixing the line length
>> issues and the other few problems reported by checkpatch.
>> 
>> Danilo, please let me know if you think this is premature, but imho it
>> is good to set this part in stone to avoid merge conflicts with future
>> patches that will want to modify the register macro.
>
> SGTM, we can keep discussing the hi:lo ascending / descending topic for
> nova-core independently.
>
> However, for the sample code that, eventually, we'll move out of nova-core, we
> should stick to what's common.
>
> With that,
>
> Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>

Pushed to drm-rust-next after fixing the checkpatch errors and
reordering the sample code in descending order.

... and as dim was pushing, I noticed I forgot to add your Acked-by. >_<
Apologies for that.

On 10/21/25 3:46 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> ... and as dim was pushing, I noticed I forgot to add your Acked-by. >_<
> Apologies for that.

No worries at all, it happens. :)