On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 20:42:23 +0100
Alexandre Belloni [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+	buf &= mask;
+	buf |= set;  

Well, this is not exactly what is expected from an update_bits function,
it should be:

	buf &= ~mask;
	buf |= set & mask;

What you pass to the function is the mask of bits you want to set.

Meh, ok. Everybody does seem to feel differently on that issue.
I did it exactly like this with ~mask in the b43 driver and received a
lot of bashing for it. :)

But well, to me either way is fine. So I'll change this to do it with
~mask too.

-- 
Michael

-- 
-- 
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.