Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] gpio: pca953x: define masks for addressing common and extended registers

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

> Am 02.05.2018 um 14:29 schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:31 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> These mask bits are to be used to map the extended register
>> addreseses (which are defined for an unsupported 8-bit pcal chip)
>> to 16 and 24 bit chips (pcal6524).
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
>> index 2b667166e855..fc863faa3ce4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
>> @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@
>> #define PCAL6524_DEBOUNCE      0x2d
>> 
>> #define PCA_GPIO_MASK          0x00FF
> 
> + empty line (the above is about contents, not addresses)

ok.

> 
>> +#define PCAL_GPIO_MASK         GENMASK(4, 0)
>> +#define PCAL_PINCTRL_MASK      (~PCAL_GPIO_MASK)
> 
> I'm not sure which would be better here
> 
> 1) to follow existing style
> 0x1F
> 0xE0

I have also thought about this.

> 
> 2) to use GENMASK() in both definitions
> 
> 3) as it in this patch.
> 
> 
> Whatever Linus prefers.

Ok, waiting for his suggestion.

> 
>> +
>> #define PCA_INT                        0x0100
>> #define PCA_PCAL               0x0200
>> #define PCA_LATCH_INT (PCA_PCAL | PCA_INT)
>> --
>> 2.12.2
>> 

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus