On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:40:19 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> This is an RFC to get input on how people feel about moving towards >> using <linux/bits.h> and <linux/bitfield.h> macros for register field >> definitions and manipulation: >> >> * BIT() >> * GENMASK() > > BIT/GENMASK macros assumes 'unsigned long' type (64b) while our registers > (and some of our temporary variables) are 'unsigned int' (32b). I don't see a problem with that as long as we stick to unsigned types. > It was reported [1] that use of plain BIT(0) may cause compilation issues. That mixes signed and unsigned types. BR, Jani. > > Michal > > [1] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2018-September/176704.html > >> * FIELD_GET() >> * FIELD_PREP() > > -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
