On 12/11/2014 03:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 14:52 +0800, Yunzhi Li wrote:
On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
[]
So If I have to write something on bit 0, I have to set bit 16.
If I have to write something on bit 1, I have to set bit 17.
If I have to write something on bit 2, I have to set bit 18.
and so on.
To me it'd look better to use another << rather than a plus
Like (BIT(13) << 16)? It looks strange, or could I just use ((1 << 13)
<< 16) to describe this bit ?
Up to you. To me, the BIT(x+y) seems odd.
I think BIT(29) is better, since you have described in comments.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html