lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: Define constants for FUNC operations
On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 08:44:26PM +0100, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 06:08:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > And plain 0 doesn't look right in this concept (something like (0 <<
> > > 0) would probably do it).
> >
> > Given that all other definitions are in terms of BIT(), to my eye "(0 << 0)"
> > looks as much out of place as plain "0". However, if the convention in this
> > case would be to use the former then I have no objections. I presume the
> > "(0 << 0)" idea comes from the fact that BIT() ultimately expands to some
> > form of shift.
>
> Yes, I would guess so. The syntax suggested by Andy looked odd and
> superfluous to me at first, but grepping the tree for this construct
> seems to suggest that it is a pretty common thing. So no problem, I
> will tweak this in v2. I understand I should apply the same concept in
> these cases:
>
> +/* Constants related to FUNC_BACKLIGHT */
> +#define FEAT_BACKLIGHT_POWER BIT(2)
> +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_OFF (BIT(0) | BIT(1))
> +#define STATE_BACKLIGHT_ON 0
>
> +#define FEAT_RADIO_LED BIT(5)
> +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_OFF 0
> +#define STATE_RADIO_LED_ON BIT(5)
>
> Right?

I suspect so.

Regards
jonathan

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-04 23:51    [W:0.111 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site