On 11 June 2015 09:57, Lee Jones wrote:
> To: Opensource [Steve Twiss]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] mfd: da9062: DA9062 MFD core driver
>
> > > > > Steve Twiss wrote:
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_PAGE_SHIFT 0
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_PAGE_MASK (0x3f << 0)
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_WRITE_MODE_SHIFT 6
> > > > > +#define DA9062AA_WRITE_MODE_MASK (0x01 << 6)
> > > >
> > > > Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > For 1 << X, you should use BIT(X).
> > >
> > > Steve Twiss wrote:
> > > The whole of this file is automatically generated by our hardware designers
> > > I would prefer it if the register definitions and bit fields are not altered [...]
[...]
> Lee Jones wrote:
> To be honest, it's probably not a blocker for acceptance, but if someone
> writes a patch next week to change all of the (0x01 << X) lines to
> start using the BIT() macro, I will accept it. Better to influenced
> your guys so you are not overly inconvenienced.
> FWIW, when upstreaming code, the excuse "someone else wrote it", has
> never been a good one to use on the lists. Believe me, I've
> tried. ;)
Hi Lee,
Depending on your next step ..
I can either send a patch to this now or wait until you have reviewed the MFD
core: if there are any further comments on this, I can update the submission
retrospectively.
Regards,
Steve
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
