From: Mika Westerberg > Sent: 31 August 2022 10:49 > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 8/31/22 11:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 08:43:54AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 08:11:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >>> -#define VR_MODE_DISABLED 0 > > >>> -#define VR_MODE_AUTO BIT(0) > > >>> -#define VR_MODE_NORMAL BIT(1) > > >>> -#define VR_MODE_SWITCH BIT(2) > > >>> -#define VR_MODE_ECO (BIT(0)|BIT(1)) > > >>> +#define PMIC_REG_MASK GENMASK(11, 0) > > >>> + > > >>> +#define VR_MODE_DISABLED (0 << 0) > > >>> +#define VR_MODE_AUTO (1 << 0) > > >>> +#define VR_MODE_NORMAL (2 << 0) > > >>> +#define VR_MODE_ECO (3 << 0) > > >>> +#define VR_MODE_SWITCH (4 << 0) > > >> > > >> IMHO this one is worse than what it was. > > > > > > I'm not sure why. Here is obvious wrong use of BIT() macro against > > > plain numbers. I can split it into a separate change with an explanation > > > of why it's better. But I think it doesn't worth the churn. > > > > FWIW I'm with Andy here, the VR_MODE_ECO clearly is trying > > to just say 3, so this is just a plain enum for values 0-4 and > > as such should not use the BIT macros. > > Yeah, enum would look better but the << 0 just makes me confused ;-) No idea what that code is doing. The values are all used to initialise a .bit structure member. So maybe BIT() is right. The _ECO value isn't used at all. Deeper analysis may be needed. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
