From: vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org (Vaibhav Hiremath)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mfd: 880m80x: Make use of BIT() macro
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:29:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558E3BB0.8020308@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPd3Wjs2+yFpruxMKQmjVD1+h0QPHD8TC-0YLrXhnxUkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Saturday 27 June 2015 11:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 2015-06-26 22:08 GMT+09:00 Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>:
>> Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
>> BIT() macro.
>
> I am not convinced that such change improves anything in existing
> code. IMHO (1 << n) is quite readable and obvious. The obviousness of
> it, is the same as obviousness of BIT(n). However I know that Lee
> Jones likes the BIT() so it's up to him :) .
>
> In the same time you are cleaning a little the indentation in defines
> which is nice, but messes with main change. It is difficult to find
> the exact differences, to review it. Can you split the patch into two
> commits - one for BIT (if this is desired by Lee Jones) and one for
> white space clean up?
>
White spaces changes are not much...
Thanks,
Vaibhav
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sameo@linux.intel.com,
lee.jones@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yizhang@marvell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: 880m80x: Make use of BIT() macro
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:29:12 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558E3BB0.8020308@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPd3Wjs2+yFpruxMKQmjVD1+h0QPHD8TC-0YLrXhnxUkbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Saturday 27 June 2015 11:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 2015-06-26 22:08 GMT+09:00 Vaibhav Hiremath <vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org>:
>> Instead of hard coding the shift for bit definition, use
>> BIT() macro.
>
> I am not convinced that such change improves anything in existing
> code. IMHO (1 << n) is quite readable and obvious. The obviousness of
> it, is the same as obviousness of BIT(n). However I know that Lee
> Jones likes the BIT() so it's up to him :) .
>
> In the same time you are cleaning a little the indentation in defines
> which is nice, but messes with main change. It is difficult to find
> the exact differences, to review it. Can you split the patch into two
> commits - one for BIT (if this is desired by Lee Jones) and one for
> white space clean up?
>
White spaces changes are not much...
Thanks,
Vaibhav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-27 5:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-26 13:08 [PATCH] mfd: 880m80x: Make use of BIT() macro Vaibhav Hiremath
2015-06-26 13:08 ` Vaibhav Hiremath
2015-06-27 5:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-27 5:36 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-27 5:59 ` Vaibhav Hiremath [this message]
2015-06-27 5:59 ` Vaibhav Hiremath
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Lee Jones
2015-07-01 8:21 ` Lee Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=558E3BB0.8020308@linaro.org \
--to=vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.