Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 10:08 PM Aidan MacDonald
> <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
