On 7 September 2015 at 17:45, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > 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.
Sent some couple of patches to use these macros, but Wolfgang Denk is not quite OK, with this move. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/470475/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/470476/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/470477/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/470478/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/470479/ thanks! -- Jagan | openedev. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
