On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 10:25:19AM -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > > > On 08/02/17 04:49, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:42:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > >>On ti, 2017-02-07 at 18:00 -0800, Michel Thierry wrote: > >>>As that is what they are meant to be. It will prevent any confusion if we > >>>have to add other flags in the future. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >><SNIP> > >> > >>>-#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN 1 > >>>-#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE 2 > >>>+#define HANG_ALLOW_BAN (1<<0) > >>>+#define HANG_ALLOW_CAPTURE (1<<1) > >> > >>Make them BIT(0) and BIT(1), and this is; > > > >This is igt and BIT() is already a hodge-podge of different macros. > > I see at least 3 different BIT macros already (Chris added the one > we want in lib/intel_device_info.c) > > I can volunteer to move it to one of the header files, replace all > the 1<<x with BIT and rename the ones in > igt_draw/intel_audio_dump... thoughts? BIT(), test_bit, set_bit, clear_bit... If you are willing to write them, please do! Make us feel at home :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
