From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:15:26 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/4] bitops: introduce BIT() definition
In-Reply-To: <8a0bbcdb993ff355300abb242fa3f16d@biessmann.de>
References: <1440176519-30102-1-git-send-email-hs@denx.de>
 <55ED7A94.2040607@denx.de> <8a0bbcdb993ff355300abb242fa3f16d@biessmann.de>
Message-ID: <201509071415.26879.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Monday, September 07, 2015 at 02:01:11 PM, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
> Hi Heiko,
> 
> On 2015-09-07 13:52, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> > Hello Andreas,
> > 
> > Am 07.09.2015 um 13:20 schrieb Andreas Bie?mann:
> >> On 08/21/2015 07:01 PM, Heiko Schocher wrote:
> >>> introduce BIT() definition, used in at91_udc gadget
> >>> driver.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
> >> 
> >> NAK, this one breaks a lot of boards which already defined BIT()
> > 
> > Uhh... seems this BIT() macro is a big mess ...
> > 
> > Hmm Wolfgang Denk NACKed a similiar patch:
> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-February/173669.html
> > 
> > In drivers/usb/gadget/at91_udc.c BIT(x) is used only once...
> > So I fix it there and use (1 << x) there. Would be this OK?
> 
> I'm fine with this solution.

On the other hand, mainline Linux is moving towards GENMASK() and BIT(),
so we should probably go with that as well.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut