From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757356AbbKFOta (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:49:30 -0500
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:38407 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752168AbbKFOt2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 09:49:28 -0500
Message-ID: <563CBDF5.50904@ultimaker.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:49:25 +0100
From: Olliver Schinagl <o.schinagl@ultimaker.com>
Organization: Ultimaker B.V.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
CC: Olliver Schinagl <oliver@schinagl.nl>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
        Joachim Eastwood <manabian@gmail.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com>,
        Olliver Schinagl <oliver+list@schinagl.nl>, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] pwm: core: use bitops
References: <1445895161-2317-1-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> <1445895161-2317-5-git-send-email-o.schinagl@ultimaker.com> <20151106144635.GA8418@ulmo>
In-Reply-To: <20151106144635.GA8418@ulmo>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 <oliver@schinagl.nl>
>>
>> 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 <oliver@schinagl.nl>
>> ---
>>   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, 与亲切的问候

Olliver Schinagl
Software Engineer
Research & Development
Ultimaker B.V.