On Monday, September 07, 2015 at 02:01:11 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > On 2015-09-07 13:52, Heiko Schocher wrote: > > Hello Andreas, > > > > Am 07.09.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Andreas Bießmann: > >> On 08/21/2015 07:01 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote: > >>> introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget > >>> driver. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> > >> > >> NAK, this one breaks a lot of boards which already defined BIT() > > > > Uhh... seems this BIT() macro is a big mess ... > > > > Hmm Wolfgang Denk NACKed a similiar patch: > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-February/173669.html > > > > In drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c BIT(x) is used only once... > > So I fix it there and use (1 << x) there. Would be this OK? > > I'm fine with this solution.
On the other hand, mainline Linux is moving towards GENMASK() and BIT(), so we should probably go with that as well. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
