On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:16:56AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote:
>
>
> Le 07/09/2018 à 21:41, Corentin Labbe a écrit :
> > Since setbits32/clrbits32 work on be32, it's better to remove ambiguity on
> > the used data type.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to call them setbits_be32() / clrbits_be32()
Le 07/09/2018 à 21:41, Corentin Labbe a écrit :
Since setbits32/clrbits32 work on be32, it's better to remove ambiguity on
the used data type.
Wouldn't it be better to call them setbits_be32() / clrbits_be32() to
have something looking similar to in_be32() / ou_be32() ?
Christophe
Since setbits32/clrbits32 work on be32, it's better to remove ambiguity on
the used data type.
Signed-off-by: Corentin Labbe
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/fsl_lbc.h | 2 +-
arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h| 5 +-
arch/powerpc/platforms/44x/canyonlands.c |
