Hi Simon,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 29 April 2015 at 07:08, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:35:05PM +0530, Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki wrote:
Replace (1 << nr) to BIT(nr) where nr = 0, 1, 2 .... 31
Signed-off-by: Jagannadha Sutradharudu Teki jagannadh.teki@gmail.com Cc: Masahiro Yamada yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
I think that conceptually this is a good idea. We need to apply this fairly quickly however as it already throws out a few rejects with the PRs I've taken and doing some local testing on.
We have to date avoided this (I've been here before). But I think it is useful. One concern I have is misuse, when someone does BIT(0) | BIT(1))| BIT(2) | BIT(3) instead of 0xf, for example.
Yep, the Intel Quark MRC stuff :)
Anyway as you say, let's do it fast if we are going this way.
Do we have to rework the Quark MRC to use the BIT(nr) again? I guess no?
Regards, Bin