Hi, On 12 May 2015 at 09:23, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 05:02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:33:39PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 01:25:30 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: >> > > On 10 May 2015 at 20:52, Jagan Teki <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > I have sent one v1 for BIT macro change for entire u-boot, >> > > > but this time I'm just introduce by changing this with spi/sf >> > > > code, will send more in changes in future. >> > > > >> > > > Along with BIT and also introduces GENMASK with spi/sf code. >> > > > >> > > > Changes for v2: >> > > > - break the BIT macro patch only for spi/sf code. >> > > > >> > > > thanks! >> > > > Jagan. >> > > > >> > > > Jagan Teki (5): >> > > > spi/sf: Add BIT macro in linux/bitops.h >> > > > spi: Remove #define BIT in local file >> > > > spi/sf: Use BIT macro from linux/bitops.h >> > > > linux/bitops.h: GENMASK copy from linux >> > > > spi: Use GENMASK instead of numeric hexcodes >> > > >> > > Any comments on this series - early push will have enough time to test >> > > and I have more patches that need to use these macros. >> > >> > I'm not very fond of this macro, it makes the code more cryptic . >> >> BIT/GENMASK are (growing in usage) kernel macros, so I think it'll help >> us in the long run. > > I won't block this, but I'm not very fond of such cryptic stuff.
Not thrilled either, but I agree it makes sense to follow kernel practice here as elsewhere. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
