From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Breathitt Gray Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 3/8] gpio: 104-dio-48e: Utilize for_each_set_clump macro Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 13:19:33 +0900 Message-ID: <20181014041933.GA7335@icarus> References: <5906381114b14d5b0359510a1d23accbd239eaa5.1538441919.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> <822be05b-092b-41c2-3c31-8981acd5cb9e@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <822be05b-092b-41c2-3c31-8981acd5cb9e@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rasmus Villemoes Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 09:00:45AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 2018-10-02 03:14, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > /* clear bits array to a clean slate */ > > bitmap_zero(bits, chip->ngpio); > > > > - /* get bits are evaluated a gpio port register at a time */ > > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ports); i++) { > > - /* gpio offset in bits array */ > > - bits_offset = i * gpio_reg_size; > > - > > - /* word index for bits array */ > > - word_index = BIT_WORD(bits_offset); > > - > > - /* gpio offset within current word of bits array */ > > - word_offset = bits_offset % BITS_PER_LONG; > > - > > - /* mask of get bits for current gpio within current word */ > > - word_mask = mask[word_index] & (port_mask << word_offset); > > - if (!word_mask) { > > - /* no get bits in this port so skip to next one */ > > - continue; > > - } > > - > > - /* read bits from current gpio port */ > > + for_each_set_clump(i, word, offset, mask, ARRAY_SIZE(ports), 8) { > > port_state = inb(dio48egpio->base + ports[i]); > > - > > - /* store acquired bits at respective bits array offset */ > > - bits[word_index] |= port_state << word_offset; > > + bits[word] |= port_state << offset; > > Somewhat unrelated to this series, but is the existing code correct? I'd > expect the RHS to be masked by word_mask; otherwise we might set bits in > bits[] that were not requested? And if one does that, the !word_mask > test is merely an optimization to avoid reading the gpios when the > result would be ignored anyway. Perhaps no caller cares. > > Rasmus I don't think the caller cares in this case. Take a look at the gpiod_get_array_value_complex function: the desired inputs are collected before gpio_chip_get_multiple is called and then looped through after -- unrequested bits are simply ignored. This caller behavior also makes sense because a bit value of 0 in the bits array does not necessarily mean the input was not requested, but may instead mean that the value at the input is 0; therefore, the caller must keep track of the requested inputs rather than try to deduce them from the values in the bits array. William Breathitt Gray