linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] thermal: loongson-2: add thermal management support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dc4c03bb-9353-fd0a-03f3-8ab147424f65@loongson.cn>
Date:   Sat, 17 Jun 2023 15:25:12 +0800
From:   zhuyinbo <zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>, wanghongliang@...ngson.cn,
        Liu Peibao <liupeibao@...ngson.cn>,
        loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn,
        zhanghongchen <zhanghongchen@...ngson.cn>, zhuyinbo@...ngson.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 1/2] thermal: loongson-2: add thermal management
 support



在 2023/6/17 下午3:15, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
> On 17/06/2023 05:25, zhuyinbo wrote:
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> 在 2023/6/12 下午10:22, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>
>>>> +#define LOONGSON2_SOC_MAX_SENSOR_NUM            4
>>>> +
>>>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_CTRL_HI            0x0
>>>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_CTRL_LO            0x8
>>>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_STATUS            0x10
>>>> +#define LOONGSON2_TSENSOR_OUT                0x14
>>>
>>> Please use BIT() macros
>>
>>
>> I learn about that BIT() is generally used to describe the functional
>> bit or control bit or status bits of a register, but these register was
>> some different register offset and not some control bit or status bit
>> So using BIT() here seems a bit inappropriate, Do you think so?
> 
> Yes, you are right


okay, I got it.

Thanks,
Yinbo