[PATCH v1 1/1] spi: Consistently use BIT for cs_index_mask (part 2)

[PATCH v1 1/1] spi: Consistently use BIT for cs_index_mask (part 2)

[Andy Shevchenko]

For some reason the commit 1209c5566f9b ("spi: Consistently use BIT
for cs_index_mask") missed one place to change, do it here to finish
the job.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/spi/spi.c | 10 +++-------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c
index a2f01116ba09..6eb8583f5e40 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c
@@ -822,14 +822,10 @@ struct spi_device *spi_new_device(struct spi_controller *ctlr,
 	proxy->controller_data = chip->controller_data;
 	proxy->controller_state = NULL;
 	/*
-	 * spi->chip_select[i] gives the corresponding physical CS for logical CS i
-	 * logical CS number is represented by setting the ith bit in spi->cs_index_mask
-	 * So, for example, if spi->cs_index_mask = 0x01 then logical CS number is 0 and
-	 * spi->chip_select[0] will give the physical CS.
-	 * By default spi->chip_select[0] will hold the physical CS number so, set
-	 * spi->cs_index_mask as 0x01.
+	 * By default spi->chip_select[0] will hold the physical CS number,
+	 * so set bit 0 in spi->cs_index_mask.
 	 */
-	proxy->cs_index_mask = 0x01;
+	proxy->cs_index_mask = BIT(0);
 
 	if (chip->swnode) {
 		status = device_add_software_node(&proxy->dev, chip->swnode);
-- 
2.43.0.rc1.1336.g36b5255a03ac

Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] spi: Consistently use BIT for cs_index_mask (part 2)

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:47:57 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> For some reason the commit 1209c5566f9b ("spi: Consistently use BIT
> for cs_index_mask") missed one place to change, do it here to finish
> the job.
> 
> 

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/1] spi: Consistently use BIT for cs_index_mask (part 2)
      commit: bb40996267670862544cb8e740afb77cbf3a7949

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark