On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:59:55PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 02:46:37PM +0000, Biju Das wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 07:42:51PM +0100, Biju Das wrote: > > ... > > > > > +#define TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_CONV_RATE FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(9, 7), 0x7) > > > > +#define TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_RC BIT(10) > > > > +#define TMP51X_TEMP_CHANNEL_MASK(n) FIELD_PREP(GENMASK(14, 11), \ > > > > + GENMASK((n) - 1, 0)) > > > > > > Why do you need FIELD_PREP() for the pure constants here? Why can you > > > simply define the constants in the proper place? > > > > I think one can clearly understand the bit definitions and value from FIELD_PREP. > > I think it is clear over engineering. In the first one the constant can't be > more than the field, in the second the defensive programming that is discouraged > in the kernel. > > #define TMP51X_TEMP_CHANNEL_MASK(n) (GENMASK((n) - 1, 0) << 11) > > would suffice and much easier to understand. > I agree. > ... > > > > > +#define TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_DEFAULT(n) (TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_CONT | \ > > > > + TMP51X_TEMP_CHANNEL_MASK(n) | \ > > > > + TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_CONV_RATE | TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_RC) > > > > > > This is better to read in a form of > > > > > > #define TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_DEFAULT(n) \ > > > (TMP51X_TEMP_CHANNEL_MASK(n) | TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_CONT | \ > > > TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_CONV_RATE | TMP51X_TEMP_CONFIG_RC) > > > > > > > I just used the indentation suggested by Guenter. > > But wouldn't my proposal be sightly better to read? I'd have to look up what specifically I had asked for, but it wasn't meant to exclude better formatting. I agree that the formatting you suggested is better. Guenter
