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]

Message-ID: <20180106124232.5f6609fb@archlinux>
Date:   Sat, 6 Jan 2018 12:42:32 +0000
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To:     Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com>
Cc:     lars@...afoo.de, Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, knaack.h@....de,
        pmeerw@...erw.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: iio: Prefer using BIT macro

On Thu,  4 Jan 2018 22:06:31 +0530
Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com> wrote:

Patch title needs to mention the specific driver being changed.

> This patch fixes the following checkpatch.pl error at multiple lines:
> 
> CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Pundir <pundirsumit11@...il.com>

The BIT Macros is just fine if they are actually a single bit field.
Some of these are not. See below.

You really have to check the datasheet to be sure on these though 
in the cases here it's obvious from the surrounding lines.

Changing those ones to BIT will actively hurt readability.

Anyhow, the other cases are good so if you can prepare a patch
changing just that and ensd it that would be great.
> ---
>  drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7152.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7152.c b/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7152.c
> index 59d1b35..b2b15b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7152.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/cdc/ad7152.c
> @@ -47,24 +47,24 @@
>  #define AD7152_STATUS_PWDN		BIT(7)
>  
>  /* 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.

>  #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.
>  #define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE_1pF		(2 << 6)
>  #define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE_4pF		(3 << 6)
>  #define AD7152_SETUP_RANGE(x)		((x) << 6)
>  
>  /* Config Register Bit Designations (AD7152_REG_CFG) */
> -#define AD7152_CONF_CH2EN		(1 << 3)
> -#define AD7152_CONF_CH1EN		(1 << 4)
> +#define AD7152_CONF_CH2EN		BIT(3)
> +#define AD7152_CONF_CH1EN		BIT(4)

These two are valid I think.

>  #define AD7152_CONF_MODE_IDLE		(0 << 0)
> -#define AD7152_CONF_MODE_CONT_CONV	(1 << 0)
> +#define AD7152_CONF_MODE_CONT_CONV	BIT(0)

This one is not. Again clear from the code let alone checking the
datasheet. We write 6 to the same location.

>  #define AD7152_CONF_MODE_SINGLE_CONV	(2 << 0)
>  #define AD7152_CONF_MODE_OFFS_CAL	(5 << 0)
>  #define AD7152_CONF_MODE_GAIN_CAL	(6 << 0)
>  
>  /* Capdac Register Bit Designations (AD7152_REG_CAPDAC_XXX) */
> -#define AD7152_CAPDAC_DACEN		(1 << 7)
> +#define AD7152_CAPDAC_DACEN		BIT(7)

This one is a 1 bit field so fine.

>  #define AD7152_CAPDAC_DACP(x)		((x) & 0x1F)
>  
>  /* CFG2 Register Bit Designations (AD7152_REG_CFG2) */