Nouveau - Oct 2025 - [PATCH v7.1 0/4] bitfield initial refactor within nova-core (RESEND)

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 at
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 at 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 at
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 at 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.