From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753704AbbKBOgG (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:36:06 -0500 Received: from smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com ([173.203.187.89]:53967 "EHLO smtp89.iad3a.emailsrvr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752749AbbKBOgD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:36:03 -0500 X-Sender-Id: abbotti@mev.co.uk Message-ID: <563774D0.8050908@mev.co.uk> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:36:00 +0000 From: Ian Abbott User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ranjithece24@gmail.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org CC: hsweeten@visionengravers.com, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] comedi: drivers: Fix - BIT macro used coding style issue References: <1446474307-6521-1-git-send-email-yes> <5637717d.0866420a.ecc6e.ffffe0f1@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <5637717d.0866420a.ecc6e.ffffe0f1@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/11/15 14:25, ranjithece24@gmail.com wrote: > From: Ranjith > > BIT macro is used for defining BIT location instead of shifting > operator - coding style issue > > Signed-off-by: Ranjith > --- > drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c > index fd5ce21..168602b 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/addi_apci_1032.c > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > #define APCI1032_MODE2_REG 0x08 > #define APCI1032_STATUS_REG 0x0c > #define APCI1032_CTRL_REG 0x10 > -#define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_OR (0 << 1) > +#define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_OR BIT(0) > #define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_AND BIT(1) > #define APCI1032_CTRL_INT_ENA BIT(2) No, that's wrong. (0 << 1) is 0, but BIT(0) is 1. Hartley already fixed the coding style issue. It's in linux-next. -- -=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd. E-mail: )=- -=( Web: http://www.mev.co.uk/ )=-