Em Qua, 2018-06-13 às 11:07 +0300, Jani Nikula escreveu: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com> wrote: > > Do we really want BIT everywhere?! > > I think I'd go for everywhere except part of a register field value: >
While I completely agree with your reasoning, this means we'll kinda always want to blacklist the BIT_MACRO checkpath type because checkpatch won't know about these exceptions, which means we won't actually need to convert everything to BIT() since no false negative emails anyway. Anyway, I submitted a patch to fix the spacing issues, I'd love to have some comments from the maintainers on it. Thanks, Paulo > #define SINGLE_BIT_OKAY BIT(25) > #define FIELD_SHIFT 20 > #define FIELD_MASK (0xf << 20) > #define FIELD_FOO_PLEASE_NO BIT(20) /* Don't do > this */ > #define FIELD_FOO (1 << 20) /* This is > consistent */ > #define FIELD_BAR (2 << 20) > #define FIELD_BAZ (3 << 20) > > > BR, > Jani. > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
