On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:50 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: ... > > > > Can you convert this to simple > > > > > > > > if (assert) > > > > ret = readl_... > > > > else > > > > ret = readl_... > > > > > > > > below? > > > > > > I don't see how that would work. We're using the done value in in the > > > readl_poll_timeout. Maybe you can be a bit more explicit. > > > > Supply done either == mask or == ^mask. Try it. > > So you want this? > if (assert) > ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(reg_status, value, (value & mask) == > done, 0, 1000); > else > ret = readl_poll_timeout_atomic(reg_status, value, (value & mask) == > ^done, 0, 1000); > > The compiler might be clever enough, but I'd worry the long body of > the readl_poll_timeout_atomic macro is inline twice. Rather than just > flipping the bit in `done`. You have a point, although it would be nice to have confirmation of either. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
