Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:

> I see, so adding u32 also here works. I'm starting to wonder if the BIT
> macro is really that nice and if I shouldn't just use (1 << n) as usual.

Actually, (1 << n) is not so good either when n is 31 - it can trigger  
overflow warnings since it will be presumed to be a signed value. (1U << n)  
should avoid that problem. Unfortunately, BIT() uses 1UL which produces  
64-bit values on 64-bit arches. The bit ops are kind of a mess in that way.  
It would be nicer if BIT was restricted to int-size values and a new BIT_UL  
or something would produce the long values.