On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 19:41 +0000, Corentin Labbe wrote: > This patch adds setbits32/clrbits32/clrsetbits32 and > setbits64/clrbits64/clrsetbits64 in linux/setbits.h header. > > Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe <clabbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/setbits.h | 55 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 include/linux/setbits.h > > diff --git a/include/linux/setbits.h b/include/linux/setbits.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..3e1e273551bb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/setbits.h > @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +#ifndef __LINUX_SETBITS_H > +#define __LINUX_SETBITS_H > + > +#include <linux/io.h> > + > +#define __setbits(readfunction, writefunction, addr, set) \ > + writefunction((readfunction(addr) | (set)), addr) > +#define __clrbits(readfunction, writefunction, addr, mask) \ > + writefunction((readfunction(addr) & ~(mask)), addr) > +#define __clrsetbits(readfunction, writefunction, addr, mask, set) \ > + writefunction(((readfunction(addr) & ~(mask)) | (set)), addr) > +#define __setclrbits(readfunction, writefunction, addr, mask, set) \ > + writefunction(((readfunction(addr) | (seti)) & ~(mask)), addr) > + > +#define setbits32(addr, set) __setbits(readl, writel, addr, set) > +#define setbits32_relaxed(addr, set) __setbits(readl_relaxed, > writel_relaxed, \ > + addr, set) > + > +#define clrbits32(addr, mask) __clrbits(readl, writel, addr, mask) > +#define clrbits32_relaxed(addr, mask) __clrbits(readl_relaxed, > writel_relaxed, \ > + addr, mask) So now setbits32/clrbits32 is implicitly little-endian? Introducing new implicit-endian accessors is probably a bad thing in general, but doing it with a name that until this patchset was implicitly big-endian (at least on powerpc) seems worse. Why not setbits32_le()? > + > +#define clrsetbits32(addr, mask, set) __clrsetbits(readl, writel, addr, > mask, set) > +#define clrsetbits32_relaxed(addr, mask, set) __clrsetbits(readl_relaxed, \ > + writel_relaxed, > \ > + addr, mask, set) > + > +#define setclrbits32(addr, mask, set) __setclrbits(readl, writel, addr, > mask, set) > +#define setclrbits32_relaxed(addr, mask, set) __setclrbits(readl_relaxed, \ > + writel_relaxed, > \ > + addr, mask, set) What's the use case for setclrbits? I don't see it used anywhere in this patchset (not even in the coccinelle patterns), it doesn't seem like it would be a common pattern, and it could easily get confused with clrsetbits. -Scott
