[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6DVb6JaRd4bhUPBIyfXXiqm668jAPyls@localhost>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 22:07:24 +0100
From: Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Banajit Goswami <bgoswami@...eaurora.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...il.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, tharvey@...eworks.com,
rjones@...eworks.com, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
orsonzhai@...il.com, baolin.wang7@...il.com, zhang.lyra@...il.com,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-actions@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/49] regmap-irq: Add broken_mask_unmask flag
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:08 PM Aidan MacDonald
> <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> This flag is necessary to prepare for fixing the behavior of unmask
>> registers. Existing chips that set mask_base and unmask_base must
>> set broken_mask_unmask=1 to declare that they expect the mask bits
>
> Boolean should take true/false.
>
>> will be inverted in both registers, contrary to the usual behavior
>> of mask registers.
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/regmap.h b/include/linux/regmap.h
>> index ee2567a0465c..21a70fd99493 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/regmap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
>> @@ -1523,6 +1523,7 @@ struct regmap_irq_chip {
>> bool clear_on_unmask:1;
>> bool not_fixed_stride:1;
>> bool status_invert:1;
>> + bool broken_mask_unmask:1;
>
> Looking at the given context, I would group it with clean_on_unmask above.
>
> The above is weird enough on its own. Can you prepare a precursor
> patch that either drops the bit fields of booleans or moves them to
> unsigned int?
Sure.
> Note, bit fields in C are beasts when it goes to concurrent access. It
> would be nice to ensure these are not the cases of a such.
These are read-only so there's no danger here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists