From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zeus03.de (zeus03.de [194.117.254.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90EE23987D for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2025 09:01:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735808520; cv=none; b=YjBrSvzwArOcM/rV1ojydzhSS/fO8u6JlU6LMmgvO+5rCelpdB0c2eR6Yx+lRBmHgh9zLyIwD4hX3RaOpN8S7Fn/HphlLklICZhtz7n69Q/BSI6lHQtXBByf1D0cejiWeZhc1oVXnHpIvg8twMi4VmEAj6vhBVypPvkXNl+M1bc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1735808520; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tQ9iKik+1vdh62SOC1kAGU9RKXy9iom2AweADUGAT1A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NOHSxvNItIYKOcvFsCdET5H7RlbPJ2tOdPLU6eai9p8y70m+Njj524cd9UdNHH+D5W0wzpoisnDOqXchqetq35aptM0sFuCWjTsBL6ZidVcBAQbWdeoHvscMWIEKOTBlJnTeZGKSyRw5eKB3yceUNDOlk7V/nMNEUzoqb0nQc/k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b=L4tV58IC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.117.254.33 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sang-engineering.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sang-engineering.com header.i=@sang-engineering.com header.b="L4tV58IC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= sang-engineering.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=k1; bh=idVy 9nflDildKn3Cz7/1Fj/okAWdKkzQab36qGM2gPw=; b=L4tV58ICByLgm2+jK6Mr Hvsrfsd1RBqOSlIu74pHM2p33mDNXzuR/6o663EEPCE9zwgHD7zYYhc4uiJSl18S 0ICP0IqMNRJHzImLvByzwivfUciRO0lP8SGXvIEIOxXTum1OEJKoxOUhOAgGFP7d Uifr2IwltB/QWDjoEIPVxjfL2gXkTelxoU4+FPWeCvF0PZ8865zOpq8CBYpDI7nz nc18zQ9MDQb/QC/GMV3E2JRktBNIiKXdMEhbNj7wQ0Vj2udMEc+V1SIJkONn4gKN NowUsOv4NTVRgplNsd20AjNjedq7Jc6fsVnVI2RzDFaO2u06+cfH5ql1Wf5X8RHA Sw== Received: (qmail 566898 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2025 10:01:52 +0100 Received: by mail.zeus03.de with ESMTPSA (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted, authenticated); 2 Jan 2025 10:01:52 +0100 X-UD-Smtp-Session: l3s3148p1@V87LabUqluwujnsY Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:01:48 +0100 From: Wolfram Sang To: David Laight Cc: linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Rasmus Villemoes , Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH RFT v2 4/5] i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: use get_parity8 helper instead of open coding it Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Wolfram Sang , David Laight , linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Rasmus Villemoes , Alexandre Belloni References: <20241229101234.2896-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20241229101234.2896-5-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20250101121431.05d831c7@dsl-u17-10> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dXJvEpTHZBt+iica" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250101121431.05d831c7@dsl-u17-10> --dXJvEpTHZBt+iica Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > @@ -123,7 +114,7 @@ static void hci_dat_v1_set_dynamic_addr(struct i3c_= hci *hci, > > dat_w0 =3D dat_w0_read(dat_idx); > > dat_w0 &=3D ~(DAT_0_DYNAMIC_ADDRESS | DAT_0_DYNADDR_PARITY); > > dat_w0 |=3D FIELD_PREP(DAT_0_DYNAMIC_ADDRESS, address) | > > - (dynaddr_parity(address) ? DAT_0_DYNADDR_PARITY : 0); > > + (parity8(address) ? 0 : DAT_0_DYNADDR_PARITY); >=20 > NAK - that isn't the same code at all. But the same algorithm? Please elaborate where you think the new code will fail compared to the old one. And frankly, are you aware of different parity calculations? Have you read the link which was in the kdocs of my new function? --dXJvEpTHZBt+iica Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmd2VfwACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZ5zhAAob7Y0sqPuY/wfQbTgch2x+PU58hHwjvNs0QZ/hmPo/h4l2g8Klied6or g0QlBPpSRZ1hZSotK2rwlbNtC9aRyGOi8kn39EjiN+8utI0G4JOkXxOuwn+x+mom rmy7Nh2d03nNcYCk/EIB3WCEMMSlvJyoGYEJ/EK6N7voYTOjPrIzTpKg2nc2EmXl jtN4SkjBtE8OnzNAfz8OpcdJlYlKvL2AL+4okn52I+LbwV95AXxd2JsQmIwWR9HW qkQjKiR/vEaMEvWw5iwFZ8PYdFpaZ2R5QZwJRC7r+Bs7cq4mSQ3Q7ga1YLDtCbwM 64bzm+qj5X8hVTvCL5yVRGF1YYIHNnSymagIyb7/1JHdeteQqSjCu0/8xRSEcrZa VhuyrtZzE2n15WcbQv7377vXilSnFF0K3OoZ3XLXyABN4XeqWTmrCeCQug1f6UQ+ pQnq89Xy+I1cMSgDVFUa10khxzClWSjepZdOIeDLpQXjFlxDFUcDp6/KaARzhvpC oa5xPCYOOX1uTmBnJZlHYI0rQieteJ4FZCtar5Z7D0D7GuWiFHQ3DJQUlHP+2eTw ZM3p/XvgSRqXFVRCdD6ZlPJggn9cBmiWFNxc2VHgi5JJ4sgQXhsZYVfdeilfGYSo evpYXwUCFlHGheZQLrYebDddJTQIm6UdcExJZCFqpESmx5wOGcs= =6+IL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dXJvEpTHZBt+iica--