linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V3 1/4] mfd: da9062: DA9062 MFD core driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 29 Jun 2015 08:01:36 +0000
From:	"Opensource [Steve Twiss]" <stwiss.opensource@...semi.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	LINUXKERNEL <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	DEVICETREE <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Dajun Chen <david.chen@...semi.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	LINUXINPUT <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	LINUXWATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	RTCLINUX <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 1/4] mfd: da9062: DA9062 MFD core driver

On 11 June 2015 09:57, Lee Jones wrote:

> To: Opensource [Steve Twiss]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] mfd: da9062: DA9062 MFD core driver
> 
> > > > > Steve Twiss wrote:
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_PAGE_SHIFT		0
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_PAGE_MASK		(0x3f << 0)
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_WRITE_MODE_SHIFT	6
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_WRITE_MODE_MASK	(0x01 << 6)
> > > >
> > > > Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > For 1 << X, you should use BIT(X).
> > >
> > > Steve Twiss wrote:
> > > The whole of this file is automatically generated by our hardware designers
> > > I would prefer it if the register definitions and bit fields are not altered [...]

[...]

> Lee Jones wrote:
> To be honest, it's probably not a blocker for acceptance, but if someone
> writes a patch next week to change all of the (0x01 << X) lines to
> start using the BIT() macro, I will accept it.  Better to influenced
> your guys so you are not overly inconvenienced.
> FWIW, when upstreaming code, the excuse "someone else wrote it", has
> never been a good one to use on the lists.   Believe me, I've
> tried. ;)

Hi Lee,

Depending on your next step ..
I can either send a patch to this now or wait until you have reviewed the MFD
core: if there are any further comments on this, I can update the submission
retrospectively.

Regards,
Steve