On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 07:38:58AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 26. 02. 25, 19:33, Yury Norov wrote: > > > Not in cases where macros are inevitable. I mean, do we need parityXX() for > > > XX in (8, 16, 32, 64) at all? Isn't the parity() above enough for everybody? > > > > The existing codebase has something like: > > > > int ret; > > > > ret = i3c_master_get_free_addr(m, last_addr + 1); > > ret |= parity8(ret) ? 0 : BIT(7) > > > > So if we'll switch it to a macro like one above, it will become a > > 32-bit parity. It wouldn't be an error because i3c_master_get_free_addr() > > returns an u8 or -ENOMEM, and the error code is checked explicitly. > > > > But if we decide to go with parity() only, some users will have to > > call it like parity((u8)val) explicitly. Which is not bad actually. > > That cast looks ugly -- we apparently need parityXX(). (In this particular > case we could do parity8(last_addr), but I assume there are more cases like > this.) Thanks for looking up the case for this. This parity8() is used in just 2 drivers - i3c and hwmon/spd5118. The hwmon driver looks good. I3C, yeah, makes this implied typecast, which is nasty regardless. This is the new code, and I think if we all agree that generic parity() would be a better API, it's a good time to convert existing users now. Thanks, Yury
