On Sat, June 27, 2020 12:56 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 01:17:29PM +0000, Roy Im wrote: > > > On Fri, June 26, 2020 3:19 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello, > > > from the PWM POV I'm happy now. Just a few minor comments that I noticed while checking the PWM details. > > > > Many thanks for your comments. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 01:59:29AM +0900, Roy Im wrote: > > > > + val = haptics->ps_seq_id << DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_SHIFT | > > > > + haptics->ps_seq_loop << DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_SHIFT; > > > > > > If you write this as: > > > > > > val = FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_ID_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_id) | > > > FIELD_PREP(DA7280_PS_SEQ_LOOP_MASK, haptics->ps_seq_loop); > > > > > > you get some additional checks for free and can drop all defines for ..._SHIFT . > > > > It is not difficult to update that as you advise, but I think having > > the shift there explicitly makes it more readable, so most of the > > drivers from my team have the defines(shift) up to now. I guess this > > is a kind of subjective thing. > > Do you think it is still necessary? Then I will update as you said. > > No, from my side it's not a hard requirement (and after all I'm not the one who will take your commit). I personally like it better > with FIELD_PREP, but I can still sleep if you don't agree :-) > > What I don't like about having both ..._SHIFT and ..._MASK is that there is some duplication as ..._SHIFT can be calculated > from ..._MASK: > > #define LALA_SHIFT (ffs(LALA_MASK) - 1) OK, I got it and I will update. > > Best regards > Uwe > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | > Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
