[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ilppncjskpt52bijaoxlwcklawjpw5cqrndtx2g5xnwpj6bhbm@kn5yjscaha5e>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 15:17:04 -0600
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.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: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] bits: Introduce fixed-type BIT
On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 09:04:45PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote:
>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?
it will clash with defines from other headers and not match the ones for
GENMASK so I prefer it the other way.
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
>
>Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists