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: <20180515093525.051856dd@bbrezillon>
References: <1525920400-11392-1-git-send-email-Jane.Wan@nokia.com>
 <20180510140311.02805561@bbrezillon> <CAHp75VcET7PZYfeRkmiP=n_xCnDzEFYS98ZLjszc1fHjdfDF2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180515093525.051856dd@bbrezillon>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 May 2018 10:46:00 +0300
Message-ID: <CAHp75VevZCGOntYdj_B0T_SOKXFkWKLgyL2+1g2X9nRyhP5w=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mtd: rawnand: use bit-wise majority to recover the
 contents of ONFI parameter
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@gmail.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Jane Wan <Jane.Wan@nokia.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>, ties.bos@nokia.com,
        prabhakar.kushwaha@nxp.com,
        "open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        jagdish.gediya@nxp.com, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2018 20:54:36 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Boris Brezillon
>> <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> +#define GET_BIT(bit, val)   (((val) >> (bit)) & 0x01)
>> >
>> > Not sure we need that macro, see below.
>>
>> +1. We have too many nice helpers for bit manipulations
>> (for_each_set_bit() as an example).
>>
>>
>> >                         for (k = 0; k < nbufs; k++) {
>> >                                 const u8 *srcbuf = srcbufs[j];
>> >
>> >                                 if (srcbuf[i] & BIT(k))
>> >                                         m++;
>> >                         }
>>
>> ...which is effectively hweightXX().
>
> No it's not.

I don't see how "not". In the loop everithing except m and k are
invariants. What did I miss?

The powerness of two of nbufs is another thing of _existing_
prototypes of hweightXX().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko