On Thu, 08 Feb 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 09:04:45PM +0100, Andi Shyti wrote: >>Hi Lucas, >> >>looks good, just one idea... >> >>... >> >>> +#define BIT_U8(b) ((u8)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u8, b) + BIT(b))) >>> +#define BIT_U16(b) ((u16)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u16, b) + BIT(b))) >>> +#define BIT_U32(b) ((u32)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u32, b) + BIT(b))) >>> +#define BIT_U64(b) ((u64)(BIT_INPUT_CHECK(u64, b) + BIT(b))) >> >>considering that BIT defines are always referred to unsigned >>types, I would just call them >> >>#define BIT8 >>#define BIT16 >>#define BIT32 >>#define BIT64 >> >>what do you think? > > it will clash with defines from other headers and not match the ones for > GENMASK so I prefer it the other way. Agreed. -- Jani Nikula, Intel
