On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Michał Kępień wrote:
>> > #define OP_GET_CAPS 0x0
>> > #define OP_GET_EVENTS 0x1
>> > #define OP_SET 0x1
>> > #define OP_GET 0x2
>> > #define OP_GET_EXT 0x4
>> > #define OP_SET_EXT 0x5
>>
>> This one looks pretty much okay (logica
> > #define OP_GET_CAPS 0x0
> > #define OP_GET_EVENTS 0x1
> > #define OP_SET 0x1
> > #define OP_GET 0x2
> > #define OP_GET_EXT 0x4
> > #define OP_SET_EXT 0x5
>
> This one looks pretty much okay (logical pairs IIUC).
Sadly, no, these are not logical pairs. But ma
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Michał Kępień wrote:
> #define OP_GET_CAPS 0x0
> #define OP_GET_EVENTS 0x1
> #define OP_SET 0x1
> #define OP_GET 0x2
> #define OP_GET_EXT 0x4
> #define OP_SET_EXT 0x5
This one looks pretty much okay (logical pairs IIUC).
--
Wit
Andy,
> What I'm trying to tell is about consistency of style.
I completely agree with all you wrote, those are all good suggestions.
But you started your reasoning with:
> So, imagine if we have two bitfields in some register, one with one
> bit and the other with two.
We are not looking at a
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Micha?? K??pie??
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Various functions exposed by
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Micha?? K??pie??
> > > wrote:
> > > > Various functions exposed by the firmware through the FUNC interface
> > > > tend to us
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > And plain 0 doesn't look right in this concept (something like (0 <<
> > > 0) would probably do it).
> >
> > Given that all other definitions are in terms of
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Micha?? K??pie??
> > wrote:
> > > Various functions exposed by the firmware through the FUNC interface
> > > tend to use a consistent set of integers for denoting the type of
> > > operation t
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > Various functions exposed by the firmware through the FUNC interface
> > tend to use a consistent set of integers for denoting the type of
> > operation to be performed
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Michał Kępień wrote:
> Various functions exposed by the firmware through the FUNC interface
> tend to use a consistent set of integers for denoting the type of
> operation to be performed for a specified feature. Use named constants
> instead of integers in each
Various functions exposed by the firmware through the FUNC interface
tend to use a consistent set of integers for denoting the type of
operation to be performed for a specified feature. Use named constants
instead of integers in each call_fext_func() invocation in order to more
clearly convey the
11 matches
Mail list logo
