From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751739AbeAWQow (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:44:52 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:41244 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281AbeAWQou (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:44:50 -0500 From: Ivan Mikhaylov To: Christian Lamparter Cc: "David S . Miller" , Rob Herring , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:44:44 +0300 X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.10.1 (Apple Git-78) In-Reply-To: <9040166.kDGxHD26M5@debian64> References: <9040166.kDGxHD26M5@debian64> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on D06ML001/06/M/IBM(Release 9.0.1FP8HF179 | April 20, 2017) at 23/01/2018 16:44:45, Serialize by Router on D06ML001/06/M/IBM(Release 9.0.1FP8HF179 | April 20, 2017) at 23/01/2018 16:44:45, Serialize complete at 23/01/2018 16:44:45 X-TNEFEvaluated: 1 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18012316-0020-0000-0000-000003EDE06D X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18012316-0021-0000-0000-000042802C11 Message-Id: <20180123164444.47989-1-ivan@de.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-01-23_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1801230229 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So if someone tries to #define EMAC_STACR_STAC_WRITE BIT(18) it would be > 0x40000 instead. This is where the confusion is coming from. Can you please > at least mention this somewhere that all the bits in the commit message are > in "MSB 0" format? It's confusing enough as it is ;). Yeap, sure, will do. > Well, the MASK is not used and it now looks odd. So you might as well > delete it. Maybe as well as all the unused EMACX_STACR_STAC_IND_* macros? I'll check and delete if it's not used anywhere. Thanks for finding :)