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:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Chen-Yu Tsai' <wenst@chromium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        "Liam Girdwood" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
CC:     "linux-actions@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-actions@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] regulator: Use bitfield values for range selectors
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] regulator: Use bitfield values for range selectors
Thread-Index: AQHZmd7Pe+BdgVqXZ0e5XsPeombenK+ER+4A
Date:   Sat, 10 Jun 2023 17:10:19 +0000
Message-ID: <ce04685b7c4840b683add0bdd4404da6@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20230608075651.3214540-1-wenst@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230608075651.3214540-1-wenst@chromium.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Chen-Yu Tsai
> Sent: 08 June 2023 08:57
> 
> Right now the regulator helpers expect raw register values for the range
> selectors. This is different from the voltage selectors, which are
> normalized as bitfield values. This leads to a bit of confusion. Also,
> raw values are harder to copy from datasheets or match up with them,
> as datasheets will typically have bitfield values.
> 
> Make the helpers expect bitfield values, and convert existing users.
> Include bitops.h explicitly for ffs(), and reorder the header include
> statements. While at it, also replace module.h with export.h, since the
> only use is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
> 
...
>  static const unsigned int atc260x_ldo_voltage_range_sel[] = {
> -	0x0, 0x20,
> +	0x0, 0x1,
>  };

Is there any way the change can be done so that un-edited
modules fail to compile?
Otherwise the whole thing is an accident waiting to happen.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)