From: suratiamol at gmail.com (Amol Surati)
Subject: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] cs5535: use BIT() macro for defining bit-flags
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:27:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190708085735.GA12241@arch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfceRDnuRtdD_mR6mMZF_LH7u1ptPRXiA=DUfgTGebCPA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:02:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:30 PM Amol Surati <suratiamol at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The BIT() macro is available for defining the required bit-flags.
>
> Shouldn't bits.h be added?
>
> > Since it operates on an unsigned value and expands to an unsigned result,
> > using it, instead of an expression like (1 << x), also fixes the problem
> > of shifting a signed 32-bit value by 31 bits. (e.g. 1 << 31. See
> > CS5536_GPIOM7_PME_FLAG and CS5536_GPIOM7_PME_EN).
>
> What problem?
> You need to describe that (UB by the standard, though gcc works fine,
> I never heard it utilizes such).
Yes. I will send a new version. I also missed including
<linux/bitops.h>, although the compilation with the default
configuration of my distro still succeeds without it, by chance.
Thank you,
-amol
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: suratiamol@gmail.com (Amol Surati)
Subject: [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] cs5535: use BIT() macro for defining bit-flags
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 14:27:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190708085735.GA12241@arch> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190708085735.nj9pQi1VVBbPM9_Daf7vSIIIUNei5ebF6R0vjvWkiN4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VfceRDnuRtdD_mR6mMZF_LH7u1ptPRXiA=DUfgTGebCPA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 11:02:29AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 2:30 PM Amol Surati <suratiamol at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The BIT() macro is available for defining the required bit-flags.
>
> Shouldn't bits.h be added?
>
> > Since it operates on an unsigned value and expands to an unsigned result,
> > using it, instead of an expression like (1 << x), also fixes the problem
> > of shifting a signed 32-bit value by 31 bits. (e.g. 1 << 31. See
> > CS5536_GPIOM7_PME_FLAG and CS5536_GPIOM7_PME_EN).
>
> What problem?
> You need to describe that (UB by the standard, though gcc works fine,
> I never heard it utilizes such).
Yes. I will send a new version. I also missed including
<linux/bitops.h>, although the compilation with the default
configuration of my distro still succeeds without it, by chance.
Thank you,
-amol
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-08 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-07 11:30 [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH] cs5535: use BIT() macro for defining bit-flags suratiamol
2019-07-07 11:30 ` Amol Surati
2019-07-08 8:02 ` andy.shevchenko
2019-07-08 8:02 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-07-08 8:57 ` suratiamol [this message]
2019-07-08 8:57 ` Amol Surati
2019-07-08 15:02 ` andy.shevchenko
2019-07-08 15:02 ` Andy Shevchenko
2019-07-10 8:39 ` [Linux-kernel-mentees] [PATCH v2] " suratiamol
2019-07-10 8:39 ` Amol Surati
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=20190708085735.GA12241@arch \
--to=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox