linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 19/20] clk: sp7021: switch to FIELD_PREP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2795210.mvXUDI8C0e@workhorse>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:48:05 +0200
From: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@...labora.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/20] clk: sp7021: switch to FIELD_PREP_WM16 macro

On Friday, 25 July 2025 03:14:10 Central European Summer Time Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Nicolas Frattaroli (2025-06-23 09:05:47)
> > The sp7021 clock driver has its own shifted high word mask macro,
> > similar to the ones many Rockchip drivers have.
> > 
> > Remove it, and replace instances of it with hw_bitfield.h's
> > FIELD_PREP_WM16 macro, which does the same thing except in a common
> > macro that also does compile-time error checking.
> > 
> > This was compile-tested with 32-bit ARM with Clang, no runtime tests
> > were performed as I lack the hardware. However, I verified that fix
> > commit 5c667d5a5a3e ("clk: sp7021: Adjust width of _m in HWM_FIELD_PREP()")
> > is not regressed. No warning is produced.
> 
> Does it generate the same code before and after?
> 

Yes, the generated machine code is exactly the same, at least with
clang, and I'll assume it'll be the same for gcc.

Kind regards,
Nicolas Frattaroli