On 2023/6/8 18:15, Mark Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 10:15:03AM +0800, Walker Chen wrote:
On 2023/6/7 19:44, Mark Brown wrote:
(tdm->rx.wl << WL_BIT) |(tdm->rx.sscale << SSCALE_BIT) |(tdm->rx.sl << SL_BIT) |(tdm->rx.lrj << LRJ_BIT);
- datarx = (tdm->rxwl << 8) |
(tdm->rxsscale << 4) |(tdm->rxsl << 2) |TDM_PCMRXCR_LEFT_J;I'm not sure this change to use numbers here is a win - the _BIT definitions look fine (I might've called them _SHIFT but whatever).
This is Claudiu's advice. Using the macro BIT() to replace these definition of *_BIT, it will result in big changes in the code.
I'm questioning doing a change at all.
Please refer to previous comments: https://lore.kernel.org/all/143e2fa2-e85d-8036-4f74-ca250c026c1b@microchip.c...
I can't find the comments you're referring to in there.
You should see the following comments in the link above:
#define CLKPOL_BIT 5#define TRITXEN_BIT 4#define ELM_BIT 3#define SYNCM_BIT 2#define MS_BIT 1
Instead of these *_BIT defines as plain numbers you can defined them using BIT() macro and use macros in place instead of