On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > And plain 0 doesn't look right in this concept (something like (0 << > > > 0) would probably do it). > > > > Given that all other definitions are in terms of BIT(), to my eye "(0 << 0)" > > looks as much out of place as plain "0". However, if the convention in this > > case would be to use the former then I have no objections. I presume the > > "(0 << 0)" idea comes from the fact that BIT() ultimately expands to some > > form of shift. > > Yes, I would guess so. The syntax suggested by Andy looked odd and > superfluous to me at first, but grepping the tree for this construct > seems to suggest that it is a pretty common thing. So no problem, I > will tweak this in v2. I understand I should apply the same concept in > these cases: > > +/* Constants related to FUNC_BACKLIGHT */ > +#define FEAT_BACKLIGHT_POWER BIT(2) > +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_OFF (BIT(0) | BIT(1)) > +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_ON 0 > > +#define FEAT_RADIO_LED BIT(5) > +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_OFF 0 > +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_ON BIT(5) > > Right? I suspect so. Regards jonathan
