binary constants (was: Re: [PATCH v3] drm/dp: Add Additional DP2 Headers)
Jani Nikula
jani.nikula at intel.com
Thu Feb 3 11:58:00 UTC 2022
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, Fangzhi Zuo <Jerry.Zuo at amd.com> wrote:
> +/* DSC Extended Capability Branch Total DSC Resources */
> +#define DP_DSC_SUPPORT_AND_DSC_DECODER_COUNT 0x2260 /* 2.0 */
> +# define DP_DSC_DECODER_COUNT_MASK (0b111 << 5)
> +# define DP_DSC_DECODER_COUNT_SHIFT 5
> +#define DP_DSC_MAX_SLICE_COUNT_AND_AGGREGATION_0 0x2270 /* 2.0 */
> +# define DP_DSC_DECODER_0_MAXIMUM_SLICE_COUNT_MASK (1 << 0)
> +# define DP_DSC_DECODER_0_AGGREGATION_SUPPORT_MASK (0b111 << 1)
> +# define DP_DSC_DECODER_0_AGGREGATION_SUPPORT_SHIFT 1
The patch was merged a while back, but only now I noticed the use of
binary constants, which in C is a GCC and Clang extension [1][2]. There
are some instances in the kernel, but not a whole lot.
Do we want to avoid or embrace them going forward? Or meh?
BR,
Jani.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Binary-constants.html
[2] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#c-14-binary-literals
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list