On 18.05.2019 00:13, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > External E-Mail > > > On 16/05/2019 08:10:34+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> @@ -69,10 +80,11 @@ static int clk_slow_osc_prepare(struct clk_hw *hw) >>>> void __iomem *sckcr = osc->sckcr; >>>> u32 tmp = readl(sckcr); >>>> >>>> - if (tmp & (AT91_SCKC_OSC32BYP | AT91_SCKC_OSC32EN)) >>>> + if (tmp & (AT91_SCKC_OSC32BYP(osc->bits) | >>>> + AT91_SCKC_OSC32EN(osc->bits))) >>> >>> I still find that: >>> >>> if (tmp & (osc->bits->cr_osc32byp | osc->bits->cr_osc32en)) >>> >>> would be shorter and easier to read and still fits on one line. >> >> Agree, but I thought to use the same interface everywhere. Anyway, tell me >> if you want to resend with these changes. >> > My comment applies to all the AT91_SCKC_.*() macros. I don't feel that > the macros make the code clearer, accessing bits->cr_.* is self > documenting enough (and makes the code shorter). OK, I'll send a new version taking this into consideration. >
