On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 04:41:50 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > On 11 December 2015 at 20:58, Fabio Estevam <feste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > >> On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 03:59:14 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > >>> On 11 December 2015 at 02:57, Troy Kisky > >>> <troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >>> > If GENMASK is REALLY desired, it should be GENMASK(23,0) > >>> > But since GENMASK is obviously more confusing, let's just revert. > >>> > > >>> > This reverts commit bad490a24212c068c5b718b9189f47ea4075d078. > >>> > >>> Sorry, just fix genmask why revert? because driver author has no > >>> complaint on this, please don't just say simply "more confusing" more > >>> over I usually prefer reverting bug fix patches. > >> > >> I also agree this GENMASK() crap is confusing. > > > > Agreed. A simple proof that this is confusing is that it broke the > > fsl_qspi.c driver. > > Probably your pointed at wrong h on genmask - but this wasn't be a > proof of any global defined macro it's a mistake of using improper h > value.
Sorry, I do not understand this sentence at all. > If something went wrong with the patch then always ask and fix > for proper thing and blaming global macro which used in other files is > not a good thing. Usage of the macro itself is so confusing that even the conversion went wrong and introduced bugs. Clearly, using the macro is NOT an improvement. I also vote for the revert. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot