[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfFh9mrF1xPfnspJ=cWs=URFrF2sjdbBMV-p36-AjkcKA@mail.gmail.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists