[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200626155604.poqryunm7fyqmgek@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:56:04 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Roy Im <roy.im.opensource@...semi.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Pascal PAILLET-LME <p.paillet@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Support Opensource <Support.Opensource@...semi.com>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 3/3] Input: new da7280 haptic driver
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:17:29PM +0000, Roy Im wrote:
> > On Fri, June 26, 2020 3:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Hello,
> > from the PWM POV I'm happy now. Just a few minor comments that I noticed while checking the PWM details.
>
> Many thanks for your comments.
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:59:29AM +0900, Roy Im wrote:
> > > + val = haptics->ps_seq_id << DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_SHIFT |
> > > + haptics->ps_seq_loop << DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_SHIFT;
> >
> > If you write this as:
> >
> > val = FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_id) |
> > FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_loop);
> >
> > you get some additional checks for free and can drop all defines for ..._SHIFT .
>
> It is not difficult to update that as you advise, but I think having
> the shift there explicitly makes it more readable, so most of the
> drivers from my team have the defines(shift) up to now. I guess this
> is a kind of subjective thing.
> Do you think it is still necessary? Then I will update as you said.
No, from my side it's not a hard requirement (and after all I'm not the
one who will take your commit). I personally like it better with
FIELD_PREP, but I can still sleep if you don't agree :-)
What I don't like about having both ..._SHIFT and ..._MASK is that there
is some duplication as ..._SHIFT can be calculated from ..._MASK:
#define LALA_SHIFT (ffs(LALA_MASK) - 1)
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists