Hi Heiko,
On 2015-09-07 13:52, Heiko Schocher wrote:
Hello Andreas,
Am 07.09.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Andreas Bießmann:
On 08/21/2015 07:01 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget
driver.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de>
NAK, this one breaks a lot of boards which already defined BIT()
Uhh... seems this BIT() macro is a big mess ...
Hmm Wolfgang Denk NACKed a similiar patch:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-February/173669.html
In drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c BIT(x) is used only once...
So I fix it there and use (1 << x) there. Would be this OK?
I'm fine with this solution.
Andreas
bye,
Heiko
---
Changes in v4: None
Changes in v3:
- new in v3
Changes in v2: None
include/linux/bitops.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
index e724310..7d30ace 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitops.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
#include <asm/types.h>
+#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr))
+
/*
* ffs: find first bit set. This is defined the same way as
* the libc and compiler builtin ffs routines, therefore
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
