[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7db1d08e-8310-8876-4ed8-36d6e53ab8bf@starfivetech.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 18:43:09 +0800
From: Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Claudiu Beznea <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ASoC: starfive: Cleanup and fix error check for JH7110
TDM
On 2023/6/8 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Walker Chen wrote:
>> On 2023/6/7 19:44, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> >> - (tdm->rx.wl << WL_BIT) |
>> >> - (tdm->rx.sscale << SSCALE_BIT) |
>> >> - (tdm->rx.sl << SL_BIT) |
>> >> - (tdm->rx.lrj << LRJ_BIT);
>> >> + datarx = (tdm->rxwl << 8) |
>> >> + (tdm->rxsscale << 4) |
>> >> + (tdm->rxsl << 2) |
>> >> + TDM_PCMRXCR_LEFT_J;
>
>> > I'm not sure this change to use numbers here is a win - the _BIT
>> > definitions look fine (I might've called them _SHIFT but whatever).
>
>> This is Claudiu's advice. Using the macro BIT() to replace these definition of *_BIT,
>> it will result in big changes in the code.
>
> I'm questioning doing a change at all.
>
>> Please refer to previous comments:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/143e2fa2-e85d-8036-4f74-ca250c026c1b@microchip.com/
>
> I can't find the comments you're referring to in there.
You should see the following comments in the link above:
> + #define CLKPOL_BIT 5
> + #define TRITXEN_BIT 4
> + #define ELM_BIT 3
> + #define SYNCM_BIT 2
> + #define MS_BIT 1
Instead of these *_BIT defines as plain numbers you can defined them using
BIT() macro and use macros in place instead of
Powered by blists - more mailing lists