Vineet Gupta [off-list ref] writes:

There's already a generic implementation so use that instead.
---
I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of
storage size of @val for 64 bit arches.

Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or()
callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to
atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ?
---
Cc: Brett Rudley <redacted>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <redacted>
Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <redacted>
Cc: Hante Meuleman <redacted>
Cc: Kalle Valo <redacted>
Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <redacted>
Cc: Daniel Kim <redacted>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <redacted>

Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <redacted>

What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my
wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it?

-- 
Kalle Valo