On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:04 PM, William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 06:06:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 4:26 PM, William Breathitt Gray >><vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This macro iterates for each group of bits (port word) with set bits, >>> within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "port_word" is set to >>> the found port word index, "word_index" is set to the word index of the >>> bitmap containing the found port word, and "word_offset" is set to the >>> bit offset of the found port word within the respective bitmap word. >> >>Isn't that idea we discussed some time ago? > > That's right, I found the time to implement the macro suggestion you > made during the get_multiple/set_multiple patchset for the PC104 GPIO > drivers a while ago. So, if you find it appropriate, please add Suggested-by. > This macro greatly simplifies the callback function implementations in > those drivers and reduces the repeated code that kept appearing among > those drivers. Hopefully it can be useful for other drivers as well. Yes, I like the idea! >>In any case, part "port" is too specific for a generic function like >>this. Please, get rid of it completely. No-one knows what port means >>here. Just makes a lot of confusion. > > Okay, I'll come up with a better name and submit a version 3 of this > patchset. I also forgot to mention that kernel-doc should accompany function definition (in *.c), and not a declaration (in *.h). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html