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;
From:   andy.shevchenko@gmail.com
Date:   Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:59:22 +0300
To:     William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>, brgl@bgdev.pl,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: idio-16: Introduce the ACCES IDIO-16 GPIO
 library module
Message-ID: <YyWMai1UZPaBbsOx@surfacebook>
References: <cover.1662927941.git.william.gray@linaro.org>
 <6b28fb497c35def57c1920362c82402bed4bd23f.1662927941.git.william.gray@linaro.org>
 <YyCs1/HgOG31MX1N@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <YyNIxWS0sneUKas0@fedora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YyNIxWS0sneUKas0@fedora>
Precedence: bulk

Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 11:46:13AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:16:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 04:34:38PM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote:

...

> > > +	if (value)
> > > +		set_bit(offset, state->out_state);
> > > +	else
> > > +		clear_bit(offset, state->out_state);
> > 
> > assign_bit()
> > 
> > But I'm wondering why do you need the atomic bitops under the lock?
> 
> I don't think atomic bitops are necessary in this case because of the
> lock as you pointedly out, but I felt using these made the intention of
> the code clearer. Is there a non-atomic version of assign_bit(), or do
> you recommend I use bitwise operations directly here instead?

__assign_bit()

Hint: All __ prefixed bitops (for a single bit operation!) are considered
non-atomic. There are exceptions when no __-variant of op is present, but
it not the case here AFAICS. 

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko