[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <292158977.4HS03to08B@wuerfel>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:52:30 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Hartley Sweeten <HartleyS@...ionengravers.com>
Cc: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@...il.com>,
Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/comedi/dt282x: avoid integer overflow warning
On Wednesday 16 March 2016 17:04:15 Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> > #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS_AD_TRIG (3 << 10)
>
> Use a helper macro for those bits:
>
> #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS(x) (((x) & 0x3) << 10)
> #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS_PIO DT2821_SUPCSR_DS(0)
> #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS_AD_CLK DT2821_SUPCSR_DS(1)
> #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS_DA_CLK DT2821_SUPCSR_DS(2)
> #define DT2821_SUPCSR_DS_AD_TRIG DT2821_SUPCSR_DS(3)
>
> > I considered using BIT() but decided against it for consistency.
>
> Your change may fix the gcc-6 issue but it doesn't fix the 28 checkpatch.pl
> issues:
> CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
I sent a new version now, and found a better solution that avoids
using BIT().
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists