On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thursday 11 December 2014 11:42 AM, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:32 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 10 December 2014 04:16 PM, Yunzhi Li wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-usb.c b/drivers/phy/phy-rockchip-usb.c >>> [] >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * The higher 16-bit of this register is used for write protection >>>>> + * only if BIT(13 + 16) set to 1 the BIT(13) can be written. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#define SIDDQ_MSK BIT(13 + 16) >>> huh? >>> >>> This #define looks _very_ odd. >>> >>> Is this supposed to be a single bit 29 or >>> some range? >> From what I understood, the most significant 16 bits are write locks to the >> least significant 16 bits. >> >> So If I have to write something on bit 0, I have to set bit 16. >> If I have to write something on bit 1, I have to set bit 17. >> If I have to write something on bit 2, I have to set bit 18. >> and so on. > To me it'd look better to use another << rather than a plus Like (BIT(13) << 16)? It looks strange, or could I just use ((1 << 13) << 16) to describe this bit ? --- Yunzhi Li @ rockchip
