On Fri Oct 10, 2025 at 12:41 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > >> On Oct 9, 2025, at 11:17 AM, Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >>> On 10/9/2025 8:37 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >>> The getter method of a field works with the field type, but its setter >>> expects the type of the register. This leads to an asymmetry in the >>> From/Into implementations required for a field with a dedicated type. >>> For instance, a field declared as >>> >>> pub struct ControlReg(u32) { >>> 3:0 mode as u8 ?=> Mode; >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> currently requires the following implementations: >>> >>> impl TryFrom<u8> for Mode { >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> impl From<Mode> for u32 { >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> Change this so the `From<Mode>` now needs to be implemented for `u8`, >>> i.e. the primitive type of the field. This is more consistent, and will >>> become a requirement once we start using the TryFrom/Into derive macros >>> to implement these automatically. >>> >>> Reported-by: Edwin Peer <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <[email protected]> >> >> As these are incremental improvements, could you please rebase on top of the >> v6 >> bitfield series so it does not conflict? >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jfern/linux.git/log/?h=nova.dev.bitfield.submitted.v6 > > On second thought, I could just carry this patch on top of my v6 series and > avoid too much conflict. > > So if it is ok with you, please only carry the last 2 patches of this series > whenever applying. > > For this patch: > Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> > > I will review the other two patches as well. Thanks.
The idea is for this patch to go *before* your series, to avoid the asymmetry in the From/Into implementions of bitfields. We could also put it after, but it would become larger as a result and I think it can be merge soon after -rc1 is tagged anyway.
