[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZcUz3V56qNeTVq66@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 21:04:45 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] bits: Introduce fixed-type BIT
Hi Lucas,
looks good, just one idea...
..
> +#define BIT_U8(b) ((u8)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u8, b) + BIT(b)))
> +#define BIT_U16(b) ((u16)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u16, b) + BIT(b)))
> +#define BIT_U32(b) ((u32)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u32, b) + BIT(b)))
> +#define BIT_U64(b) ((u64)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u64, b) + BIT(b)))
considering that BIT defines are always referred to unsigned
types, I would just call them
#define BIT8
#define BIT16
#define BIT32
#define BIT64
what do you think?
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists