On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:02 AM Sakari Ailus
<sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:42:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ...
> > > > + */
> > > > +enum fwnode_graph_get_endpoint_flags {
> > > > + FWNODE_GRAPH_ENDPOINT_NEXT = 0x00000001,
> > >
> > > BIT(1) ?
> > >
> > > > + FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED = 0x00000002,
> > >
> > > BIT(2) ?
> > >
> > > > +};
> >
> > Actually, enum types are not particularly suitable for flags in my
> > view, because something like
> >
> > FWNODE_GRAPH_ENDPOINT_NEXT | FWNODE_GRAPH_DEVICE_DISABLED
> >
> > is not really defined within the enum type, for example.
> >
> > It's better to #define the flags IMO and use unsigned int as the type.
>
> Enums can have better kerneldoc documentation; that's been the reasoning to
> make flags fields enums in e.g. V4L2 kAPI. In C it's still valid use of
> enums even if the value isn't any value listen in an enum as such.
>
> Anyway, I'll switch to #define and make the comment just a regular comment
> if you prefer that.
I do.
I did something like that with device links flags, for example.
