On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Walker Chen wrote: > On 2023/6/7 19:44, Mark Brown wrote: > >> - (tdm->rx.wl << WL_BIT) | > >> - (tdm->rx.sscale << SSCALE_BIT) | > >> - (tdm->rx.sl << SL_BIT) | > >> - (tdm->rx.lrj << LRJ_BIT); > >> + datarx = (tdm->rxwl << 8) | > >> + (tdm->rxsscale << 4) | > >> + (tdm->rxsl << 2) | > >> + TDM_PCMRXCR_LEFT_J; > > I'm not sure this change to use numbers here is a win - the _BIT > > definitions look fine (I might've called them _SHIFT but whatever). > This is Claudiu's advice. Using the macro BIT() to replace these definition of *_BIT, > it will result in big changes in the code. I'm questioning doing a change at all. > Please refer to previous comments: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/143e2fa2-e85d-8036-4f74-ca250c026c1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I can't find the comments you're referring to in there.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
