Dear mailing list, I've been asked in https://review.coreboot.org/42134 to please start a discussion on the mailing list about the naming convention of the functions I've added in said patch.
I decided to use `unset_and_set` because that's what libgfxinit uses. In coreboot, we already have `clrsetbits` to operate on memory-mapped addresses. However, `pci_update_config` functions have different semantics, as they take an and-mask instead of an unset-mask. This requires one to use explicit casts to silence spurious overflow warnings if using bitwise negations on shorter-than-int types and the most significant bit is set. Since the added functions operate on bytes, the casts are necessary too often, which clutters the code and suppresses valid overflow warnings. Using an unset-mask solves all these problems, but having `update` in the names of two function families with different semantics would be too cruel. And `clrsetbits` doesn't look too good as a middle `word` in a function name, which is why I went with `unset_and_set` instead. Any thoughts? Best regards, Angel _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
