Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1192921
| From | Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] brcmfmac: dhd_sdio.c: use existing atomic_or primitive |
| Date | 2015-07-27 12:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pQNw7-6QN-25@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pKfdL-6cK-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <pKfdL-6cK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPODV-3CT-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <pPOXg-3Zq-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pQs8h-1qe-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> writes: > On 07/24/2015 07:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On Friday 24 July 2015 08:02 PM, Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> writes: >>> >>>>> There's already a generic implementation so use that instead. >>>>> --- >>>>> I'm not sure if the driver usage of atomic_or?() is correct in terms of >>>>> storage size of @val for 64 bit arches. >>>>> >>>>> Assuming LP64 programming model for linux on say x86_64: atomic_or() >>>>> callers in this driver use long (sana 64 bit) storage and pass it to >>>>> atomic_orr/atomic_or which downcasts it to 32 bits. Is that OK ? >>>>> --- >>>>> Cc: Brett Rudley <brudley@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: "Franky (Zhenhui) Lin" <frankyl@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Hante Meuleman <meuleman@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> >>>>> Cc: Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: Daniel Kim <dekim@broadcom.com> >>>>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: brcm80211-dev-list@broadcom.com >>>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >>>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >>>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com> >>> What's the plan with this patch? Should I take it to my >>> wireless-drivers-next tree or will someone else take it? >> >> >> Per last discussion on this topic, Arend wanted to discuss abt this with Hante. >> I'm not taking it anyways so feel free to pick it up if you want ! > > Well, that was before your "timeline" clarification about the generic > function. One what tree is this patch based? Yeah, if this patch depends on another patch I need to know about it. Otherwise I might break something when I apply this patch. -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 2/3] brcmfmac: dhd_sdio.c: use existing atomic_or primitive Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2015-07-27 12:10 +0200 Re: [PATCH 2/3] brcmfmac: dhd_sdio.c: use existing atomic_or primitive Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2015-07-27 12:30 +0200
csiph-web