Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:00:22 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] irqchip/sifive-plic: Add support for Renesas
 RZ/Five SoC
In-Reply-To: <20220629134147.GA16868@duo.ucw.cz>
References: <20220626004326.8548-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <20220626004326.8548-3-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
 <87wnd3erab.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <CA+V-a8tcxj_N0sBHhgAZAN8WSJ12JnDzAvUUnCXto3wHLqNVwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87v8snehwi.wl-maz@kernel.org>
 <CAMuHMdVt9FjCtvMgJcCh=g2b+8b-fgabGbOLDcXNrrPMpC+3jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+V-a8uLzLJ=wB6oUu0b2oZO=FPSCTSrqb=3m9=BJxATFKmjMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdUWC_7MPnP6LcOqi96FAhrAENC4iwtv2ksZVnvR8BC4ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <0fdbfdd0ee1c7ca39f8d3e2f86af1194@kernel.org>
 <CA+V-a8u8X+bne_a3LY13zGTKr-hOWhm=R9gGX1JyE8PzWRNXpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220629134147.GA16868@duo.ucw.cz>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13
Message-ID: <632a70d4d9b434cb126cecb015c69797@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-06-29 14:41, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> > >> +#define PLIC_QUIRK_EDGE_INTERRUPT      BIT(0)
>> > >>
>> > >>  struct plic_priv {
>> > >>         struct cpumask lmask;
>> > >>         struct irq_domain *irqdomain;
>> > >>         void __iomem *regs;
>> > >> +       u32 plic_quirks;
>> > >>  };
>> > >>
>> > >> What about something like above?
>> > >
>> > > LGTM.
>> > >
>> > > Marc suggested to make this unsigned long, but TBH, that won't make
>> > > much of a difference.  PLICs are present on RV32 SoCs, too, so you
>> > > cannot rely on having more than 32 bits anyway.
>> >
>> > But it will make a difference on a 64bit platform, as we want to
>> > use test_bit() and co to check for features.
>> >
>> Ok will change that to unsigned long and use the test_bit/set_bit 
>> instead.
> 
> Is there good enough reason for that? test_bit/... are when you need
> atomicity, and that's not the case here. Plain old & ... should be
> enough.

On any save architecture, '&' and test_bit() are the same thing.
Only RMW operations require atomicity.

'unsigned long' is is.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...