On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 16:50, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:25 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 15:39, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 8:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > > Why all these ugly % 32 against constants? > > > > > > > > > > Because the JH7100_RST_ values goes higher than 31. There is a > > > > > BIT_MASK macro, but that does % BITS_PER_LONG and this is a 64bit > > > > > machine. > > > > > > > > And? It's exactly what you have to use! > > > > > > So you want me to use an unsigned long array or DECLARE_BITMAP and > > > juggle two different index and bit offsets? > > > > What are the offsets of those status registers? > > AFAICS they are sequential 4 32-bit registers. > > That's right, but we're on a 64bit machine, so DECLARE_BITMAP will > give us an unsigned long array that doesn't match that. I didn't get it, sorry. You will have a bitmap array which you will split to 32-bit values. What you will probably need is to move xgpio_get_value32() and void xgpio_set_value32() to the one of bitmap related headers (look for bitmap_get_value8() and friends). > > So bitmap is exactly what is suitable here, you are right! > > See gpio-xilinx and gpio-pca953x on how to use bitmaps in the GPIO drivers. > > None of them has a pre-initialized const DECLARE_BITMAP, so they don't > have to deal with the 4 vs. 2 commas problem. I believe it's well possible to refactor this to look much better with bitmaps (as it represents the hardware very well). > > > Also is there a macro for handling that we'd then need 4 commas on > > > 32bit COMPILE_TEST and 2 commas on 64bit? > > > If you have some other way in mind you'll have to be a lot more explicit again. > > > > > > The point of the jh7100_reset_asserted array is that it exactly > > > mirrors the values of the status registers when the lines are > > > asserted. Maybe writing it like this would be more explicit: > > > > > > static const u32 jh7100_reset_asserted[4] = { > > > /* STATUS0 register */ > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_U74 % 32) | > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_VP6_DRESET % 32) | > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_VP6_BRESET % 32), > > > /* STATUS1 register */ > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_DRESET % 32) | > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_BRESET % 32), > > > /* STATUS2 register */ > > > BIT(JH7100_RST_E24 % 32), > > > /* STATUS3 register */ > > > 0, > > > }; -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko