[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce BIT and GENMASK

[Jagan Teki]

On 13 May 2015 at 07:18, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12 May 2015 at 09:23, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 05:02:37 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:33:39PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> > On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 01:25:30 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>> > > On 10 May 2015 at 20:52, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
>>> > > > I have sent one v1 for BIT macro change for entire u-boot,
>>> > > > but this time I'm just introduce by changing this with spi/sf
>>> > > > code, will send more in changes in future.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Along with BIT and also introduces GENMASK with spi/sf code.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Changes for v2:
>>> > > >         - break the BIT macro patch only for spi/sf code.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > thanks!
>>> > > > Jagan.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Jagan Teki (5):
>>> > > >   spi/sf: Add BIT macro in linux/bitops.h
>>> > > >   spi: Remove #define BIT in local file
>>> > > >   spi/sf: Use BIT macro from linux/bitops.h
>>> > > >   linux/bitops.h: GENMASK copy from linux
>>> > > >   spi: Use GENMASK instead of numeric hexcodes
>>> > >
>>> > > Any comments on this series - early push will have enough time to test
>>> > > and I have more patches that need to use these macros.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not very fond of this macro, it makes the code more cryptic .
>>>
>>> BIT/GENMASK are (growing in usage) kernel macros, so I think it'll help
>>> us in the long run.
>>
>> I won't block this, but I'm not very fond of such cryptic stuff.
>
> Not thrilled either, but I agree it makes sense to follow kernel
> practice here as elsewhere.

OK, then I will push these changes and probably start more updates
on remaining code as well.

Any comments/reviews - pleas share.

thanks!
-- 
Jagan Teki,
Openedev.