On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 07:08:32PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> wrote: > > Replace numeric mask hexcodes with GENMASK macro in mxs_spi > > > > Cc: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jt...@openedev.com> > > --- > > drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c b/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c > > index 627644b..459c603 100644 > > --- a/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c > > +++ b/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > > > > #define MXS_SPI_MAX_TIMEOUT 1000000 > > #define MXS_SPI_PORT_OFFSET 0x2000 > > -#define MXS_SSP_CHIPSELECT_MASK 0x00300000 > > +#define MXS_SSP_CHIPSELECT_MASK GENMASK(21, 20) > > Does this really improve the code? > > Personally I prefer the original code as I don't need to go and look > at the definition of the GENMASK() macro.
Fair point. This is a kernel helper macro but it's "new" and still gaining traction. I personally do find GENMASK(hi, lo) and BIT(x) more readable. Others don't. That's fine. The question I have here is, who is spending the most time in these drivers? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
