Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] ARM:stixxxx: Add STiH415 SOC support

From: Srinivas KANDAGATLA
Date: Thu Jun 13 2013 - 08:45:48 EST

On 13/06/13 12:56, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
>> You are right, It does not make sense to use BIT() macro for field which
>> has more than 1 bit. I think using mix of both BIT() and the old style
>> will make code look bit confusing to reader, Also no other mach code in
>> the kernel use BIT while configuring L2 controller. So am going to drop
>> the idea of using BIT here and leave the code as it is.
> I'd suggest putting a comment in the code to that effect. With the way
> "cleanups" get done, I wouldn't be surprised if this attracts a lot of
> people wanting to do a trivial "1 << bit" -> "BIT(bit)" conversions.
Hmm... I can add a comment for them.

> One of the problems of open source is that you can say "no" to a patch
> like that until you're blue in the face, but it will eventually make
> its way in via some path.
> Just one of the reasons I consider BIT() to be evil and an inappropriate
> macro.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at