Hi Tom, On 30 April 2015 at 07:30, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 06:33:41PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Jagan, >> >> On 29 April 2015 at 08:58, Jagan Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi Simon, >> > >> > On 29 April 2015 at 20:12, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> >> >> On 29 April 2015 at 07:08, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:35:05PM +0530, Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Replace (1 << nr) to BIT(nr) where nr = 0, 1, 2 .... 31 >> >>>> >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki <jagannadh.t...@gmail.com> >> >>>> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> >> >>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> >> >>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> >> >>> >> >>> I think that conceptually this is a good idea. We need to apply this >> >>> fairly quickly however as it already throws out a few rejects with the >> >>> PRs I've taken and doing some local testing on. >> >> >> >> We have to date avoided this (I've been here before). But I think it >> >> is useful. One concern I have is misuse, when someone does BIT(0) | >> >> BIT(1))| BIT(2) | BIT(3) instead of 0xf, for example. >> > >> > Probably we can achieve this with GENMASK(h, l), may be we can add that >> > also? >> >> I'm not sure about that...we might end up with this: >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/93363/ > > Welcome to the world of introducing an idea before the rest of the > community is ready :( . GENMASK as Jagan is talking about came into the > kernel (well, into <linux/bitops.h> in 2013. So yeah, we could pull > that macro in too and clean up as needed / ensure people don't do funny > looking things like BIT(1) | BIT(2) | ...
SGTM. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
