On Mon Sep 29, 2025 at 9:26 PM CEST, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On 9/24/2025 12:40 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 06:24:34PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > [..] >> >>> For the separate issue of enforcing endianness with respect to (across) >>> multiple fields, I agree with you that if the user's backend (the consumer >>> of >>> the data) is not doing such conversion, say via regmap, then that becomes a >>> problem. But that problem is orthogonal/different and cannot be solved >>> here. >> >> But that is exactly what these macros are being defined here for, so to >> ignore that is going to cause problems :) >> > > If needed, happy to add endianness support as needed by providing additional > options to the macro. Based on this thread, it sounds like we want see if that > is really needed here or can be solved elsewhere (?). The mental model I kind > of > have is this macro should only be dealing with CPU native endianness, much > like > bitfields in C deal with CPU endianness. Hmm.
At least for register!() we don't need anything else than CPU endianness. In fact, as described in [1], any representation is fine as long as it is consistent. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
