On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:11 AM Alexandre Belloni
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 11/09/2019 01:27:10+0100, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#if ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK != BITS_PER_LONG

Should it not be > rather than != ?

Realistically, the only case that could happen would be
ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK == 32 and BITS_PER_LONG ==64. so I would go for
ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK < BITS_PER_LONG

OK I see.

quoted

quoted

+               word = BIT_WORD(bank * ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK);
+               offset = bank * ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK % BITS_PER_LONG;
+#endif

This doesn't look good for multiplatform kernels.

I don't think we have multiplatform kernels that run both in 32 and 64
bits. I don't believe ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK will ever change, it has
been 32 on all the atmel SoCs since 2001.

So there is a bit missing from the commit message: the info that
the same driver is being used on 32 and 64 bit builds, and that is
the reason we allow compile-time ifdef things.

Can you add this to the commit message, or maybe
inline in the code, or both?

It confused me so it will confuse others.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel