Hi Wolfram, On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:26 PM Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What about unifying the individual SIFCTR_?FWM_[0-9]* definitions > > into SIFCTR_xFWM_[0-9]* instead, and using the bitfield helpers in its > > sole user? > > But they don't match, so we can't unify them? > > #define SIFCTR_TFWM_1 (7UL << 29) /* Transfer Request when 1 empty stage */ > > vs > > #define SIFCTR_RFWM_1 (0 << 13) /* Transfer Request when 1 valid stages */ > > Also, the steps don't match (1, 4, 8, 12..) vs (1, 4, 8, 16...). I stand corrected... /me looks envious for a brown paper bag... 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