On Saturday 08 January 2011 07:36 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 08/01/2011 14:17, Aneesh V a écrit :
>
<snip..>
>>>> +/* some utility macros */
>>>> +#define mask(start, end) \
>>>> + (((1<< ((end) - (start) + 1)) - 1)<< (start))
>>>> +
>>>> +#define mask_n_get(reg, start, end) \
>>>> + (((reg)& mask(start, end))>> (start))
>>>
>>> Seeing as these functions are only used in the ARMv7 cache C file, they
>>> should be moved there.
>>
>> I plan to use a modified version of mask_n_get() and its set couterpart
>> mask_n_set() in my subsequent works in more files.
>>
>> Can I keep it here itself or should I move it to an OMAP specific
>> header file or can I move it to a more generic header file? Please
>> suggest.
>
> They're very generic actually. I think they should go to a gereric bit
> manipulation header, and be named a... bit... more explicitly. For
> instance, the name 'mask' does not show that the macro creates a range
> of 'one' bits from start to end.
>
What I need is something like below:
#define get_bit_field(nr, start, mask)\
(((nr) & (mask)) >> (start))
#define set_bit_field(nr, start, mask, val)\
(nr) = ((nr) & ~(mask)) | (((val) << (start)) & (mask))
Can these go in a generic header? If so, can I add them to
"include/linux/bitops.h"
Best regards,
Aneesh
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
