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.