On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:58:52PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:46 PM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:27:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > The debug code in sh_pfc_write_config_reg() prints the width of the > > > field being modified. > > > > > > However, registers with a variable-width field layout are identified by > > > pinmux_cfg_reg.field_width being zero, hence zeroes are printed instead > > > of the actual field widths. > > > > > > Fix this by printing the Hamming height of the field mask instead, which > > > is correct for both fixed-width and variable-width fields. > > > > s/height/width ? > > Nah, weight. Will fix. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_weight I was thinking weight :) > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks! > > 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 >
