From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: o.schinagl@ultimaker.com (Olliver Schinagl) Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:49:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] pwm: core: use bitops In-Reply-To: <20151106144635.GA8418@ulmo> References: <1445895161-2317-1-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> <1445895161-2317-5-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> <20151106144635.GA8418@ulmo> Message-ID: <563CBDF5.50904@ultimaker.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hey Thierry, but why have the bit macro at all then :) But that choice I guess I leave to you, as it's your section, I know some submaintainers prefer it and want it to be used, so I guess it's something in general kernel wide that should be desided on, BIT() macro preferred or not. Olliver On 06-11-15 15:46, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:32:35PM +0100, Olliver Schinagl wrote: >> From: Olliver Schinagl >> >> The pwm header defines bits manually while there is a nice bitops.h with >> a BIT() macro. Use the BIT() macro to set bits in pwm.h >> >> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl >> --- >> include/linux/pwm.h | 7 ++++--- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > I don't think this is a useful change. The BIT() macro needs the same > number of characters to type at the expense of requiring an additional > include. > > Thierry -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Kind regards, ?????? Olliver Schinagl Software Engineer Research & Development Ultimaker B.V.