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

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

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.

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/