[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1436284082.10819.56.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 18:48:02 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Tero Kristo <t-kristo@...com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] clk: introduce clk_div_mask() helper
On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 12:48 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk
> > -provider.h
> > index 5591ea7..20b0b67 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > @@ -353,6 +353,11 @@ struct clk_divider {
> > spinlock_t *lock;
> > };
> >
> > +static inline unsigned long clk_div_mask(u8 width)
> > +{
> > + return (1 << width) - 1;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Why not just change drivers to use GENMASK? It's a proven and
> tested way to generate a bitmask.
Too many unneeded calculations I suppose.
Compare:
mask = clk_div_mask(mm) << ms;
which is simple ((1 << mm) - 1) << ms
and
mask = GENMASK(mm + ms - 1, ms);
which is (~0 << ms) & (~0 >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (mm + ms -
1)))
>
> So I'd rather see drivers converted to use that macro directly
> especially because the mask may need to start at some bit that
> isn't 0.
If you think the above is not a burden, I can do the conversion to
GENMASK.
Though it might make sense when ms = 0 explicitly.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists