linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHp75VfNeC=i96-_Pgez1RKTH1_NYX03iYObDk2+hCwtzdpKHg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 21:17:27 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        Jonathan Cormier <jcormier@...ticallink.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] gpio: tps65219: add GPIO support for TPS65219 PMIC

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 6:21 PM jerome Neanne <jneanne@...libre.com> wrote:
> On 26/05/2023 20:15, andy.shevchenko@...il.com wrote:

...

> > Missing bits.h
> >
>
> Thanks for your review.Just to be sure on this particular point:
> Your recommendation here it to include explicitly bits.h.
>
> I can see BIT_MASK(n) defined in linux/bits.h
> BIT(n) is defined in vdso/bits.h
>  From what I can see, BIT(n) is broadly used across kernel but
> BIT_MASK(n) sounds to be the Linux strict way...
>
> In current version I'm using BIT(n) macro not BIT_MASK(n).
> Do you recommend to replace every BIT(n) currently used with BIT_MASK(n)?

The semantics (if you look into implementations of those two) are different.

BIT() is for a single word (your case), while BIT_MASK() is for an
array of words.

* word in case of Linux kernel means element of unsigned long type.

> Sorry for asking dumb questions. Just trying to make sure I
> correctly/fully understand your feedback... And do it all right for the
> next iteration.

No problem.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko