From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D23A412C551; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711384460; cv=none; b=tK57pIMPP8Pdj2U7uFVY7G8geRB20Kvqot+yssEY9bh293A4pquFrwkcA3FzqhOFwC/BAxPII2ad4LYkmP1fcDu28bX6cQH0mcA9UpU6n/BkhTWeX1pl6yDNvME7tNRP8bnzqsQ1sbojD318weMLlLds40DEsIvN25dKKoPXmN8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711384460; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UAS46IJcG3uBdN1lZzwUuv04mLPkLsl6ZrWX5laSLr4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=C2kphqHuizNY3xN+W9oavBShV+riV1OG7lvdoOUf8udPFy3THQZfC+BFjJ9yL97CgT5NsWKSZrKO/PGWglwbXU0nytsBwBxz47VEA+23CvVxUzuzDm6d6B28oC1PNo/dfgmyPQSSWD0glUJeI4HcTWFAHEobeOB6c/8PIV0F1wU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=IoUSLqoV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="IoUSLqoV" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1711384459; x=1742920459; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UAS46IJcG3uBdN1lZzwUuv04mLPkLsl6ZrWX5laSLr4=; b=IoUSLqoVil51f+VxNGhTyfe/oQJLv64aQ2V1DdpfD8JtFdyg7yPXxXnD iiMlEETUvq5bHw4LXpPijGb7PsUc9LKeOOh4QPoI8Pa0euc99tB8zQA6B gXwz3M8so/UUUf7kUXpiLaz98owp61S3YVys7kxZDwatEiMpQ3WVHIlqz Z7OVQs8tkfqI2o7XzDyrELA36vjTfzR9fxJDyPPTLkPkbp//58bK9R85a FYDuUH67yaOW8V5eKP4G43Ept/ahrmFBFRpQfFZfL8Byk+T4oxZKAKK5w uBItdOsMTcXSE3b6p4jx8VUuFA1oPgXW2b1IyX57CTyFjK0RqmKXK9a91 Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11024"; a="17028825" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,153,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="17028825" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Mar 2024 09:34:18 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11024"; a="914848583" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,153,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="914848583" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Mar 2024 09:34:16 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1ronH4-0000000G31d-0sTY; Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:34:14 +0200 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:34:13 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Patrick Rudolph , linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] hwmon: (pmbus/mp2975) Replace home made version of __assign_bit() Message-ID: References: <20240325120952.3019767-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20240325120952.3019767-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 09:29:11AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:07:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The newly introduced SWAP() macro is quite generic by naming, but > > moreover it's a repetition of the existing __assign_bit(). > > With this applied, add a missing bits.h (via now required bitops.h). > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko > > Not sure if I like __assign_bit() more than SWAP(), To add to the mess, we have swap() already defined globally. This one steps on our toes. > but at least it is "standard". Applied. Thank you! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko