On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 14:52 +0800, Yunzhi Li wrote: > On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: [] > >> 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 ? Up to you. To me, the BIT(x+y) seems odd.
