On Monday 29 October 2012 14:56:27 Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 28-10-2012 17:17, Jonas Gorski wrote: > > > The softreset register description for BCM6358 was missing, so add it. > > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/mips/include/asm/mach-bcm63xx/bcm63xx_regs.h | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-bcm63xx/bcm63xx_regs.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-bcm63xx/bcm63xx_regs.h > > index 12963d0..e84e602 100644 > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-bcm63xx/bcm63xx_regs.h > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/mach-bcm63xx/bcm63xx_regs.h > [...] > > @@ -244,6 +245,15 @@ > > SOFTRESET_6348_ACLC_MASK | \ > > SOFTRESET_6348_ADSLMIPSPLL_MASK) > > > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_SPI_MASK (1 << 0) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_ENET_MASK (1 << 2) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_MPI_MASK (1 << 3) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_EPHY_MASK (1 << 6) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_SAR_MASK (1 << 7) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_USBH_MASK (1 << 12) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_PCM_MASK (1 << 13) > > +#define SOFTRESET_6358_ADSL_MASK (1 << 14) > > + > > Why not use BIT(n) instead of (1 << n)? All other bcm63xx headers consistently use (1 << n), I would rather we keep this convention. -- Florian
