On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 22:01 +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Dear Gerhard Sittig, > > In message <1392665727-5734-2-git-send-email-...@denx.de> you wrote: > > several compile units and local header files re-invented the > > BIT() macro, move BIT() and BITMASK() declarations into the > > common.h header file and adjust call sites > ... > > diff --git a/include/common.h b/include/common.h > > index 221b7768c5be..49885f3c01bf 100644 > > --- a/include/common.h > > +++ b/include/common.h > > @@ -967,6 +967,9 @@ static inline phys_addr_t map_to_sysmem(const void *ptr) > > #define ALIGN(x,a) __ALIGN_MASK((x),(typeof(x))(a)-1) > > #define __ALIGN_MASK(x,mask) (((x)+(mask))&~(mask)) > > > > +#define BIT(n) (1U << (n)) > > +#define BITMASK(bits) (BIT(bits) - 1) > > + > > I'm sorry, but these macros are ugly and make the code harder to read. > Also, they are inherently non-portable. I guess you are not aware > that "bit 0" is the MSB on Power architecture, not the LSB as you > expect in your definition. > > I strongly reommend NOT to use any such macros. Adding these to > common.h could be considered as an invitation to use them, which is > the opposite of what I want. > > So sorry, but this is a clear NAK.
That's fine with me. So this patch can get dropped and nothing changes for the existing code base. The MCS7830 driver will then need a respin (after I took in some more feedback, of course). There was the question of whether to use the BIT(5) macro or re-invented (1 << 5) or 0x20 numbers. The feedback now allows a clear answer. :) virtually yours Gerhard Sittig -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr. 5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: off...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot