linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] mfd: Add support for the MediaTek MT6397 PMIC

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]

Message-ID: <20150126112629.GP12209@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:26:29 +0100
From:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Yingjoe Chen (陳英洲) 
	<Yingjoe.Chen@...iatek.com>, Henry Chen <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>,
	YH Chen (陳昱豪) <yh.chen@...iatek.com>,
	Flora Fu <flora.fu@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] mfd: Add support for the MediaTek MT6397 PMIC

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:11:19AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:40PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > +	struct mt6397_chip *mt6397 = irq_get_chip_data(data->irq);
> > > > +	int shift = mt6397_irq_shift(data->hwirq);
> > > > +	int reg = mt6397_irq_reg(data->hwirq);
> > > > +	int reg_ofs = MT6397_INT_CON0 + reg * 2;
> > > > +
> > > > +	mt6397->irq_masks_cur[reg] &= ~(1 << shift);
> > > 
> > > s/(1 << shift)/BIT(shift)/
> > 
> > Is it mentioned somewhere that these BIT macros shall be used? There are
> > quadrillions of examples for both styles in the kernel and personally I
> > think 1 << x is more readable.
> 
> I haven't seen a hard and fast 'rule' per say.  I think it's left up
> to the Maintainer of any given subsystem. ;)

Ok, I know your opinion already, I hope Samuel has the same ;).
I'll change it to BIT().

Maybe I'll even change my personal opinion since I noticed that 1 << x
doesn't work for 64bit registers. Here 1UL << x must be used, but this
could easily be forgotten.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/