[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNARvOC-TsJbGA2-0i5tDtHkoL4o8jdFn5_MghY5UzXd-iA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:19:33 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and
clean-up arm64 header
Hi Will,
Is this series applicable to arm64 tree?
Thanks.
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:37 PM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
>
> Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT().
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> arch/s390/include/asm/*.h
>
> I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available
> in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly.
>
> 1/2 replaced
> 1UL -> UL(1)
> 0UL -> UL(0)
> 1ULL -> ULL(1)
> 0ULL -> ULL(0)
>
> With this, there is no more restriction that prevents assembly
> code from using them.
>
> 2/2 is a clean-up as as example.
>
> I can contribute to cleanups of arch/s390/, etc.
> once this series lands in upstream.
>
> I hope both patches can go in the arm64 tree.
>
>
>
> Masahiro Yamada (2):
> linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly
> arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT()
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
> include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++---
> 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists