On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12 2018 at 13:40 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > > +enum pdc_irq_config_bits {
> > > + PDC_POLARITY_LOW = 0,
> > > + PDC_FALLING_EDGE = 2,
> > > + PDC_POLARITY_HIGH = 4,
> > > + PDC_RISING_EDGE = 6,
> > > + PDC_DUAL_EDGE = 7,
> >
> > My previous comment about using binary constants still stands. Please
> > either address review comments or reply at least. Ignoring reviews is not
> > an option.
> >
> > Aside of that I really have to ask about the naming of these constants. Are
> > these names hardware register nomenclature? If yes, they are disgusting. If
> > no, they are still disgusting, but should be changed to sensible ones,
> > which just match the IRQ_TYPE naming convention.
> >
> > PDC_LEVEL_LOW = 000b,
> > PDC_EDGE_FALLING = 010b,
> > ....
> >
> >
> Checkpatch doesn't like binary constants. I guess I will need to keep
> the enum definitions in hex or decimal. I will remove the binary from
> the comments though.
Well checkpatch is not always right.
>
> commit 95e2c6023b0e4c8499fb521697f79215f69135fe
> Author: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Jul 3 15:05:20 2013 -0700
>
> checkpatch: warn when using gcc's binary constant ("0b") extension
>
> The gcc extension for binary constants that start with 0b is only
> supported with gcc version 4.3 or higher.
Can anything of this be compiled with gcc < 4.3?
Thanks,
tglx
