From: Hariprasad S <hariprasad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:45:10 +0530
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 14:54:43 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 08:20:54 +0530
>>
>> > It's not really the "hardware" which generates these hardware constant symbolic
>> > macros/register defines of course, it's scripts developed by the hardware team.
>> > Various patches have ended up changing the style of the symbolic macros/register
>> > defines and some of them used the macros/register defines that matches the
>> > output of the script from the hardware team.
>>
>> We've told you that we don't care what format your internal whatever uses
>> for these macros.
>>
>> We have standards, tastes, and desires and reasons for naming macros
>> in a certain way in upstream kernel code.
>>
>> I consider it flat out unacceptable to use macros with one letter
>> prefixes like "S_". You simply should not do this.
>>
>
> Okay. Weʼll clean up all of the macros to match the files' original style. We
> do need to change the sense of the *_MASK macros since they donʼt match how we
> use them as field tokens. Also the *_SHIFT, *_MASK and *_GET names are
> sucking up space and making lines wrap unnecessarily, creating readability
> problems. Can we change these to *_S, *_M and *_G? E.g.:
That's fine.
?τθΊ{.nΗ+?·????+%?Λ?±ιέΆ??w?Ί{.nΗ+?·??{±ώ·fkψ§Ά?ʽά¨}©?²Ζ zΪ&j:+v?¨ώψ ―ω ?w?ώ?ΰ2?ή?¨θΪ&ʼ)ίʽ«aΆΪ??ϋΰzΏδzΉή?ϊ+?ω???έʼj??wθώf
