Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:41 PM William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 02:41:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, May 03, 2020 at 04:38:36AM +0530, Syed Nayyar Waris wrote:

...

> > Looking into the last patches where we have examples I still do not see a
> > benefit of variadic clump sizes. power of 2 sizes would make sense (and be
> > optimized accordingly (64-bit, 32-bit).
> >
> > --
> > With Best Regards,
> > Andy Shevchenko
>
> There is of course benefit in defining for_each_set_clump with clump
> sizes of powers of 2 (we can optimize for 32 and 64 bit sizes and avoid
> boundary checks that we know will not occur), but at the very least the
> variable size bitmap_set_value and bitmap_get_value provide significant
> benefit for the readability of the gpio-xilinx code:
>
>         bitmap_set_value(old, state[0], 0, width[0]);
>         bitmap_set_value(old, state[1], width[0], width[1]);
>         ...
>         state[0] = bitmap_get_value(new, 0, width[0]);
>         state[1] = bitmap_get_value(new, width[0], width[1]);
>
> These lines are simple and clear to read: we know immediately what they
> do. But if we did not have bitmap_set_value/bitmap_get_value, we'd have
> to use several bitwise operations for each line; the obfuscation of the
> code would be an obvious hinderance here.

Do I understand correctly that width[0] and width[1] may not be power
of two and it's actually the case?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko