[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54C4151D.2080306@nexus-software.ie>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 21:56:45 +0000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
"Ong, Boon Leong" <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"dvhart@...radead.org" <dvhart@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86: Add Isolated Memory Regions for Quark X1000
On 24/01/15 11:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Ong, Boon Leong
> <boon.leong.ong@...el.com> wrote:
>
>>> +static int imr_enabled(struct imr_regs *imr)
>> Do we want to make it inline perhaps since it is 1 liner?
>
> Since it is declared static I would even suggest the new name is_imr_enabled().
I think imr_is_enabled() is a better name. Every other function is imr_
prefixed.
>>> +
>>> + if ((imr_to_phys(imr.addr_lo) == base) &&
>>> + (imr_to_phys(imr.addr_hi) == max)) {
>> I think we need to take care of the size that has been fix-up here ...
>>
>>> + found = 1;
>>> + reg = i;
>
> According to your comment this line becomes redundant.
>
Ah but I still think though.
We eventually do an imr_write(reg, &imr); which I think reads better
than imr_write(i, &imr);
--
BOD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists