On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:11:19AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:14:40PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > + struct mt6397_chip *mt6397 = irq_get_chip_data(data->irq); > > > > + int shift = mt6397_irq_shift(data->hwirq); > > > > + int reg = mt6397_irq_reg(data->hwirq); > > > > + int reg_ofs = MT6397_INT_CON0 + reg * 2; > > > > + > > > > + mt6397->irq_masks_cur[reg] &= ~(1 << shift); > > > > > > s/(1 << shift)/BIT(shift)/ > > > > Is it mentioned somewhere that these BIT macros shall be used? There are > > quadrillions of examples for both styles in the kernel and personally I > > think 1 << x is more readable. > > I haven't seen a hard and fast 'rule' per say. I think it's left up > to the Maintainer of any given subsystem. ;)
Ok, I know your opinion already, I hope Samuel has the same ;). I'll change it to BIT(). Maybe I'll even change my personal opinion since I noticed that 1 << x doesn't work for 64bit registers. Here 1UL << x must be used, but this could easily be forgotten. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
