Hi,

On 11/06/2015 at 09:27:45 +0000, Opensource [Steve Twiss] wrote :

Thanks for replying so quickly.

quoted

I'm still not particularly happy with this.  Can yo speak to your H/W
guys and get them to change their scripts to output sensible header
files?

Ah. Ok. 

For our side, the generated headers might not just be used for Linux. I've
just discussed this with my colleagues and they will need it to remain.
So I guess internally we will keep the headers like this, but as it enters
my submission process I can change it for the Linux community.
 

quoted

To be honest, it's probably not a blocker for acceptance, but if someone
writes a patch next week to change all of the (0x01 << X) lines to
start using the BIT() macro, I will accept it.  Better to influenced
your guys so you are not overly inconvenienced.

Yep: I will change this BIT() macro for the submissions in future.
Depending on the next step, I will send a patch to this or update the submission
if there are further comments on this patch set.

Maybe a good solution would be to define BIT() at the top of your
generated header so that you simply have to remove it or replace it with
the proper include before mainline submission.

quoted

FWIW, when upstreaming code, the excuse "someone else wrote it", has
never been a good one to use on the lists.   Believe me, I've
tried. ;)

heh okay :)

Regards,
Steve

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux".
Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux .
Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist
before submitting a driver.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com