On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 06:54:54PM +0100, Daniele Venzano wrote:
> >>+/* Power management capabilities bits */
> >>+enum sis900_cfgpmc_register_bits {
> >>+ PMVER = 0x00070000,
> >>+ DSI = 0x00100000,
> >>+ PMESP = 0xf8000000
> >>+};
> >>+
> >>+enum sis900_pmesp_bits {
> >>+ PME_D0 = 0x1,
> >>+ PME_D1 = 0x2,
> >>+ PME_D2 = 0x4,
> >>+ PME_D3H = 0x8,
> >>+ PME_D3C = 0x10
> >>+};
> >
> >Why not something like this instead?
> >
> > /* Power management capabilities bits */
> > enum sis900_cfgpmc_register_bits {
> > PMVER = 0x00070000,
> > DSI = 0x00100000,
> > PMESP = 0xf8000000
> > PME_D0 = 0x08000000,
> > PME_D1 = 0x10000000,
> > PME_D2 = 0x20000000,
> > PME_D3H = 0x40000000,
> > PME_D3C = 0x80000000
> > };
>
> It's really the same and the way it is now is more similar to the way
> those bits are explained in the datasheets.
Sure, it's the same.
> and the way it is now is more similar to the way those bits are
> explained in the datasheets.
It doesn't matter much to me, but the advantage is that it avoids the
need for shifts -- note how there are 3 mistakes in the line
"ret = inl(CFGPMC & PMESP);" and one of them is having forgotten a shift.
cheers,
Lennert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
