RE: [PATCH 1/1] common/cnxk: added new macros to platform layer

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: Srikanth Yalavarthi [mailto:syalavarthi@marvell.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 April 2022 19.42
> 
> Added new macros for pointer operations, bitwise operations,
> spinlocks and 32 bit read and write.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srikanth Yalavarthi <syalavarthi@marvell.com>
> ---
>  drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h     | 12 ++++++++++++
>  drivers/common/cnxk/roc_platform.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---------
>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h
> b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h
> index 11216d9d63..ce3dffa08d 100644
> --- a/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h
> +++ b/drivers/common/cnxk/roc_bits.h
> @@ -29,4 +29,16 @@
>  	 (~0ULL >> (BITS_PER_LONG_LONG - 1 - (h))))
>  #endif
> 
> +#ifndef IS_BIT_SET
> +#define IS_BIT_SET(num, n) ((num) & (1 << (n)))
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef SET_BIT
> +#define SET_BIT(num, n) ((num) | (1 << (n)))
> +#endif
> +
> +#ifndef CLEAR_BIT
> +#define CLEAR_BIT(num, n) ((num) &= ~((1) << (n)))
> +#endif
> +
>  #endif /* _ROC_BITS_H_ */

You could consider replacing these with explicit 32/64 bit variants, using the RTE_BIT64() and RTE_BIT32() macros instead of (1 << (n)).

Just a suggestion - I'll leave it up to you.

-Morten