On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:10 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The reason of including <linux/bitops.h> here is just for BIT() macro.
>
> Since commit 8bd9cb51daac8 ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some
> macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"),
> <linux/bits.h> is enough for such compile-time macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Patch applied.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:02:19 +0200
- In-reply-to: <1539662998-15467-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
- References: <1539662998-15467-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
- References:
- [PATCH] pinctrl: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- From: Masahiro Yamada
- [PATCH] pinctrl: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: pinctrl: bcm4708-pinmux: improve example binding
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] gpio: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] pinctrl: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- Next by thread: [PATCH] gpio: uniphier: include <linux/bits.h> instead of <linux/bitops.h>
- Index(es):
 |