Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757628AbaLKHQ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:16:27 -0500 Received: from regular1.263xmail.com ([211.150.99.132]:53057 "EHLO regular1.263xmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757196AbaLKHQZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2014 02:16:25 -0500 X-263anti-spam: KSV:0; X-MAIL-GRAY: 0 X-MAIL-DELIVERY: 1 X-KSVirus-check: 0 X-ABS-CHECKED: 4 X-RL-SENDER: zyw@rock-chips.com X-FST-TO: devicetree@vger.kernel.org X-SENDER-IP: 104.167.231.143 X-LOGIN-NAME: zyw@rock-chips.com X-UNIQUE-TAG: <641464a2dff2d863c1e5b6b6b69c355e> X-ATTACHMENT-NUM: 0 X-DNS-TYPE: 0 Message-ID: <548944B6.90703@rock-chips.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:16:06 +0800 From: Chris Zhong User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches , Yunzhi Li CC: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , heiko@sntech.de, jwerner@chromium.org, dianders@chromium.org, olof@lixom.net, huangtao@rock-chips.com, cf@rock-chips.com, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Grant Likely , Rob Herring , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] phy: add a driver for the Rockchip SoC internal USB2.0 PHY References: <1418208371-18851-1-git-send-email-lyz@rock-chips.com> <1418208371-18851-2-git-send-email-lyz@rock-chips.com> <5489338C.1030109@ti.com> <1418278322.18092.30.camel@perches.com> <54893963.7060304@ti.com> <1418279847.18092.32.camel@perches.com> <54893F26.5050304@rock-chips.com> <1418281568.18092.34.camel@perches.com> In-Reply-To: <1418281568.18092.34.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/11/2014 03:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 14:52 +0800, Yunzhi Li wrote: >> On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > [] >>>> So If I have to write something on bit 0, I have to set bit 16. >>>> If I have to write something on bit 1, I have to set bit 17. >>>> If I have to write something on bit 2, I have to set bit 18. >>>> and so on. >>> To me it'd look better to use another << rather than a plus >> Like (BIT(13) << 16)? It looks strange, or could I just use ((1 << 13) >> << 16) to describe this bit ? > Up to you. To me, the BIT(x+y) seems odd. I think BIT(29) is better, since you have described in comments. > > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/