[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 20/23] spi: mxs_spi: Use GENMASK

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:12:12AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 11:49:43 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 03:48:14PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 03:42:43 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > On 24 October 2015 at 18:10, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 05:39:07 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > >> Replace numeric mask hexcodes with GENMASK macro
> > > > >> in mxs_spi
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Cc: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>  drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c | 2 +-
> > > > >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c b/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c
> > > > >> index 627644b..459c603 100644
> > > > >> --- a/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c
> > > > >> +++ b/drivers/spi/mxs_spi.c
> > > > >> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>  #define      MXS_SPI_MAX_TIMEOUT     1000000
> > > > >>  #define      MXS_SPI_PORT_OFFSET     0x2000
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> -#define MXS_SSP_CHIPSELECT_MASK              0x00300000
> > > > >> +#define MXS_SSP_CHIPSELECT_MASK              GENMASK(21, 20)
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>  #define MXS_SSP_CHIPSELECT_SHIFT     20
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is just making things unreadable, please keep it as is. NAK.
> > > > 
> > > > What's wrong with the GENMASK here is that something that you against
> > > > with it? It don't look like unreadable.
> > > 
> > > If I open the datasheet, I can easily locate mask 0x0030_0000 and figure
> > > out which bits I need to work with. With genmask ... not so much. It only
> > > obfuscates the code.
> > 
> > Really?  I don't have the "mxs" datasheet handy but I have the mx6
> > solo/duallite one handy and the SPI chapter talks about bits and has
> > them broken down that way, not the hex numbers for masking whatever
> > field.  This matched my expectation on how I recall the TI parts being
> > as well, bit field descriptions and binary values, not hex.
> 
> MXS is sigmatel design, so the datasheets are different. And I am much more
> fond of a bitmask being a bitmask (or a hex number) than some ad-hoc macro.

Oh yeah, those parts.  I don't have my sigmatel copy of those datasheets
around anymore either, heh.  I'm still used to datasheets that talk in
terms of bitfields and binary and not giving you the hex mask.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20151024/4a66dd2e/attachment.sig>