Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] riscv: Introduce support for defining instructions

[Andrew Jones]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:49:44PM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote:
...
> > +#define OPCODE(v)	__ASM_STR(v)
> > +#define FUNC3(v)	__ASM_STR(v)
> > +#define FUNC7(v)	__ASM_STR(v)
> > +#define RD(v)		__ASM_STR(v)
> > +#define RS1(v)		__ASM_STR(v)
> > +#define RS2(v)		__ASM_STR(v)
> 
> you might want some sort of prefix here
> 	RISCV_RS1(v) ?
> 
> While trying to adapt this for the cmo stuff I ran into the issue
> of bpf complaining that "IMM" is already defined there.
> 
> And names above are generic enough that these also
> might conflict with other stuff.
> 

Ah, thanks for the heads up. Indeed, if this gets included in another
header, which gets widely included, then we have a good chance of
bumping into something. It's a pity, but, as you suggest, we probably
need prefixes and __ isn't likely enough alone. I also see __REG is
used elsewhere.

Thanks,
drew

> 
> 
> 
> > +#define __REG(v)	__ASM_STR(x ## v)
> > +#define __RD(v)		__REG(v)
> > +#define __RS1(v)	__REG(v)
> > +#define __RS2(v)	__REG(v)
> > +
> > +#endif /* __ASM_INSN_DEF_H */
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>