Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180514130438.GB20325@sophia>
References: <cover.1525785532.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> <c919f6c2ff54a29114bd5e566997f11e5ebf29c3.1525785532.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
 <CAHp75VdBL-K2H9tXAG2wPefCdpv913dbJOvvEkOXE7r=+2+NYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180514130438.GB20325@sophia>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 20:08:06 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VdRksnTB_Bq_3-V7h_Dd=woj9=998DsVih-MtQo2hUbaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_port_word macro
To:     William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:04 PM, William Breathitt Gray
<vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 06:06:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 4:26 PM, William Breathitt Gray
>><vilhelm.gray@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This macro iterates for each group of bits (port word) with set bits,
>>> within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "port_word" is set to
>>> the found port word index, "word_index" is set to the word index of the
>>> bitmap containing the found port word, and "word_offset" is set to the
>>> bit offset of the found port word within the respective bitmap word.
>>
>>Isn't that idea we discussed some time ago?
>
> That's right, I found the time to implement the macro suggestion you
> made during the get_multiple/set_multiple patchset for the PC104 GPIO
> drivers a while ago.

So, if you find it appropriate, please add Suggested-by.

> This macro greatly simplifies the callback function implementations in
> those drivers and reduces the repeated code that kept appearing among
> those drivers. Hopefully it can be useful for other drivers as well.

Yes, I like the idea!

>>In any case, part "port" is too specific for a generic function like
>>this. Please, get rid of it completely. No-one knows what port means
>>here. Just makes a lot of confusion.
>
> Okay, I'll come up with a better name and submit a version 3 of this
> patchset.

I also forgot to mention that kernel-doc should accompany function
definition (in *.c), and not a declaration (in *.h).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko