On 02/11/15 14:25, ranjithece24@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Ranjith <ranjithece24@xxxxxxxxx> BIT macro is used for defining BIT location instead of shifting operator - coding style issue Signed-off-by: Ranjith <ranjithece24@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c index fd5ce21..168602b 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ #define APCI1032_MODE2_REG 0x08 #define APCI1032_STATUS_REG 0x0c #define APCI1032_CTRL_REG 0x10 -#define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_OR (0 << 1) +#define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_OR BIT(0) #define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_AND BIT(1) #define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_ENA BIT(2)
No, that's wrong. (0 << 1) is 0, but BIT(0) is 1. Hartley already fixed the coding style issue. It's in linux-next. -- -=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd. E-mail: <abbotti@xxxxxxxxx> )=- -=( Web: http://www.mev.co.uk/ )=- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
