Hi Aneesh. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Aneesh V <ane...@ti.com> wrote: [snip]
> I am surprised why Linux doesn't have a solution for this. Perhaps the > reason must be the confusion about the representation of a field that > we discussed below. I suspect there may be non-standard local > implementations in different modules. I think there are a few reasons. Linux tends to do a lot more processing in between bitfield accesses, so the problem is less apparent (bitfield access as a proportion of total code size is small). Also very often Linux supports all different values for a field, so computing values to put into fields (based on function parameters) is more common than just setting to a few selected values, which is common in U-Boot. > > Also, as somebody already mentioned, can't we do better than Linux? In this area, yes! [snip] > > Please consider the above example and let me know if I missed any > solution using the existing standard macros. > > best regards, > Aneesh > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
