On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 11:06:17AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
In defining VEND1_GLOBAL_LED_PROV_ACT_STRETCH there was a typo where the GENMASK definition was swapped.
Fix it to prevent any kind of misconfiguration if ever this define will be used in the future.
I thought GENMASK() was supposed to warn about this kind of thing. I've questioned in the past whether GENMASK() is better than defining fields with hex numbers, and each time I see another repeat of this exact case, I re-question whether GENMASK() actually gives much benefit over hex numbers because it's just too easy to get the two arguments to GENMASK() swapped and it's never obvious that's happened.
I don't remember there being a dribble of patches in the past correcting bitfields defined using hex numbers, but that seems common with GENMASK().