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

[Julius Werner]

>> On 08.02.2016 12:10, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
>> > 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi at google.com>:
>> >> 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.
>> > Seems like for the BIT defines, all variants are popular. Any
>> > objection with moving them to src/include instead of having various
>> > copies across the tree?
>> How about something like src/include/please_dont_use.h ?
>>
> I don't know about that but I'd have no objection to a comment in the file
> itself that these are vile constructs.

If we agree on what not to use, why not just fix it completely?
coccinelle is great for that sort of thing.
(For the record, I don't mind BIT(x) too much but I also prefer (1 <<
x), since it's more consistent with multi-bit fields like (5 << x).)