On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [ text/plain ]
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:28:20PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > +enum fb_mmap_wa_flags {
>> > + FB_MMAP_WA_CPU = 1 << 0,
>> > + FB_MMAP_WA_GTT = 1 << 1,
>> > + FB_MMAP_WA_DISABLE = 1 << 2,
>> > + FB_MMAP_WA_FLAG_COUNT = 3,
>> > +};
>>
>> Drive-by review, adding bit flags as enums doesn't feel like what enums
>> should be used for. I'd go for macros instead.
>
> Pretty established convention, some like it since it allows gdb&friends to
> decode your bitflags for you. So abusing enums as flag set is imo ok.
Bah, prevents GCC and friends from giving you sensible warnings on
switch cases etc. :p
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
