Hi, Ping!!! Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT() macro? On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Bart, > Thanks for your review. > > On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote: >>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few >>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned >>> with reset of the file. >> >> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h: >> >> #define UFS_BIT(x) (1L << (x)) >> >> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve >> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to >> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it? >> > Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing > UFS_BIT() macro. > > I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place. > > Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one > to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to > UFS_BIT. > > I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change > UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which > this patch is trying to change. > >> Thanks, >> >> Bart. >> > Thanks! > Alim -- Regards, Alim
