[coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

Patrick Georgi pgeorgi at google.com
Thu Feb 4 10:35:23 CET 2016

Hi all,

during the review of some commits that are in the process of being
upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to
define their own TRUE/FALSE defines (sometimes prefixed to), and I
have seen a bunch of #define BIT{0-31} ..., too, because that seems to
be the house rules in some firmware communities.

I think we should seek uniformity here: decide on some style,
recommend it, clean up the tree to match, and help people stay
consistent through lint tests. What I don't know however is what that
style should look like.

So, two topics:

Do we want such defines? If so, TRUE/FALSE, or true/false, or
True/False, or ...?

2. BIT16 vs BIT(16) vs (1 << 16) vs 0x10000
I don't think it makes sense to go for a single one of these (0x3ff is
certainly more readable than BIT11 | BIT10 | BIT9 | BIT8 | BIT7 | BIT8
| BIT5 | BIT4 | BIT3 | BIT2 | BIT1 | BIT 0), but I doubt we need both
BIT16 and BIT(16).

Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg
Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle

More information about the coreboot mailing list