On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
> Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
> BIT() macro.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath
> ---
> Boot tested on PXA1928 based platform.
> Note that all upcoming patches will be on top of this patch now.
>
> include/linux/mfd/88p
On Saturday 27 June 2015 11:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
2015-06-26 22:08 GMT+09:00 Vaibhav Hiremath :
Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
BIT() macro.
I am not convinced that such change improves anything in existing
code. IMHO (1 << n) is quite readable and obviou
2015-06-26 22:08 GMT+09:00 Vaibhav Hiremath :
> Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
> BIT() macro.
I am not convinced that such change improves anything in existing
code. IMHO (1 << n) is quite readable and obvious. The obviousness of
it, is the same as obviousness of BIT(n).
Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
BIT() macro.
Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath
---
Boot tested on PXA1928 based platform.
Note that all upcoming patches will be on top of this patch now.
include/linux/mfd/88pm80x.h | 162 ++--
1 fil
4 matches
Mail list logo