linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: iio: Prefer using BIT macro

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, 8 Jan 2018 01:30:29 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: iio: Prefer using BIT macro

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Thu,  4 Jan 2018 22:06:31 +0530

>>  /* Setup Register Bit Designations (AD7152_REG_CHx_SETUP) */
>> -#define AD7152_SETUP_CAPDIFF         (1 << 5)
>> +#define AD7152_SETUP_CAPDIFF         BIT(5)
>
> This is indeed a 1 bit field so fine.

But shouldn't we prevent style over the module? Otherwise it might be
hard to decode one field from the other because of style differences.

>>  #define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE_2pF               (0 << 6)
>> -#define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE_0_5pF     (1 << 6)
>> +#define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE_0_5pF     BIT(6)
> This is clearly putting the value 1 in a 2 bit field within
> the register - BIT macro obscures this compeltely.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko