On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Jacopo Mondi
>> +#define PIN_CONF_UNPACK_PARAM(c) ((c) & 0xffUL)
>> +#define PIN_CONF_UNPACK_ARGS(c) ((c) >> 8)
>
> But why.
>
> I have these two static inlines just below your new macros:
>
> static inline enum pin_config_param pinconf_to_config_param(unsigned
> long config)
> {
> return (enum pin_config_param) (config & 0xffUL);
> }
>
> static inline u32 pinconf_to_config_argument(unsigned long config)
> {
> return (u32) ((config >> 8) & 0xffffffUL);
> }
Cool, need...more...context...in...patches ;-)
> Why can't you use this in your code instead of macros?
>
> We generally prefer static inlines over macros because they are easier
> to read.
Sure.
Thanks for noticing!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
