On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 at 22:05, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinch...@ideasonboard.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 09:32:36PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 8/12/25 3:26 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/renesas/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h
> > >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/renesas/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h
> > >> index a6b276f1d6ee..b3e57217ae63 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/renesas/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/renesas/rcar-du/rcar_mipi_dsi_regs.h
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> @@ -51,11 +51,11 @@
> > >>
> > >> #define TXVMVPRMSET0R 0x1d0
> > >> #define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_HIG (0 << 17)
> > >> -#define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_LOW (1 << 17)
> > >> +#define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_LOW BIT(17)
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about this (and below). We have two defines for the HSPOL,
> > > high and low. If one of them is (x << y), shouldn't the other one be of
> > > that style too?
> >
> > It is inconsistent, but one macro describes bit set to 0 and the other
> > bit set to 1 (i.e. the actual bit) which is converted to BIT(n) macro. I
> > would be tempted to remove the bits set to 0, that's probably the real
> > discussion that should happen here. But that would also be a much bigger
> > patch. What do you think ?
>
> For what it's worth, for single-bit register fields, I usually define a
> single macro. I understand it's usually a coding style preference.
An alternative would be to define 3 macros:
#define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL BIT(17)
#define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_HIG 0
#define TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_LOW 1
and use FIELD_PREP(TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL, TXVMVPRMSET0R_HSPOL_{HIG,LOW}).
But I agree a single definition is fine for a single-bit register field.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
