On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:00:40PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > 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()? > I believed that writel/readl was endian agnostic, but It seems that I was wrong. So I will use _le32. > > > + > > +#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. > It is absent from the coccinelle script due to copy/paste error. And absent from patchset since it is only two possible example that I can test. If you run the next fixed coccinelle script, you will find some setclrbits. Since I fear that mask and set could have some common bits sometimes, I prefer to keep separate clrsetbits and setclrbits. Regards
