On 7 September 2015 at 17:45, Marek Vasut marex@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 hs@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!