| Message ID | 1445895161-2317-5-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32:35PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: > From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> > > The pwm header defines bits manually while there is a nice bitops.h with > a BIT() macro. Use the BIT() macro to set bits in pwm.h > > Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> > --- > include/linux/pwm.h | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) I don't think this is a useful change. The BIT() macro needs the same number of characters to type at the expense of requiring an additional include. Thierry
Hey Thierry, but why have the bit macro at all then :) But that choice I guess I leave to you, as it's your section, I know some submaintainers prefer it and want it to be used, so I guess it's something in general kernel wide that should be desided on, BIT() macro preferred or not. Olliver On 06-11-15 15:46, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32:35PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: >> From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> >> The pwm header defines bits manually while there is a nice bitops.h with >> a BIT() macro. Use the BIT() macro to set bits in pwm.h >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >> --- >> include/linux/pwm.h | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > I don't think this is a useful change. The BIT() macro needs the same > number of characters to type at the expense of requiring an additional > include. > > Thierry
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Olliver Schinagl <o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> wrote: > Hey Thierry, > > but why have the bit macro at all then :) For my opinion, it's good to use in new code, or when you have this change as a continuation of bigger series. Though, others might have a different one :-) > > But that choice I guess I leave to you, as it's your section, I know some > submaintainers prefer it and want it to be used, so I guess it's something > in general kernel wide that should be desided on, BIT() macro preferred or > not. > > Olliver > > > On 06-11-15 15:46, Thierry Reding wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32:35PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: >>> >>> From: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >>> >>> The pwm header defines bits manually while there is a nice bitops.h with >>> a BIT() macro. Use the BIT() macro to set bits in pwm.h >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl> >>> --- >>> include/linux/pwm.h | 7 ++++--- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> I don't think this is a useful change. The BIT() macro needs the same >> number of characters to type at the expense of requiring an additional >> include. >> >> Thierry > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groeten, Kind regards, ?????? > > Olliver Schinagl > Software Engineer > Research & Development > Ultimaker B.V. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/include/linux/pwm.h b/include/linux/pwm.h index d681f68..29315ad 100644 --- a/include/linux/pwm.h +++ b/include/linux/pwm.h @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ #ifndef __LINUX_PWM_H #define __LINUX_PWM_H +#include <linux/bitops.h> #include <linux/err.h> #include <linux/of.h> @@ -74,9 +75,9 @@ enum pwm_polarity { }; enum { - PWMF_REQUESTED = 1 << 0, - PWMF_ENABLED = 1 << 1, - PWMF_EXPORTED = 1 << 2, + PWMF_REQUESTED = BIT(0), + PWMF_ENABLED = BIT(1), + PWMF_EXPORTED = BIT(2), }; /**