Le 12/01/2011 10:08, Aneesh V a écrit : > 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"
After some more thought, I am wondering if a *generic* field setting and getting macro is really useful. So far everyone is fine with at most defining field-specific macros. > Best regards, > Aneesh Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
