linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: da8xx-cfgchip: New header file for CFGCHIP registers.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <570B5F1D.7030609@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:53:57 +0530
From:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
CC:	<petr@...ix.com>, <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Bin Liu <b-liu@...com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:ARM PORT" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"open list:USB SUBSYSTEM" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: da8xx-cfgchip: New header file for CFGCHIP
 registers.

On Monday 28 March 2016 10:12 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 03/28/2016 06:02 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> 
>>>> +/* register offsets */
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP_REG(n)                (n * 4)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP0_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(0)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP1_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(1)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP2_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(2)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP3_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(3)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP4_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(4)
>>>
>>>     Why not just use CFGCHIP_REG(n) directly?
>>
>> I considered that, but I went this way because A) the TRM uses, for
>> example,
>> "CFGCHIP2", so I wanted to keep "CFGCHIP" and "2" together

IMO, this is not that big of an issue. Anyone reading should be able to
make out that CFGCHIP_REG(0) is same as CFGCHIP0 referred to in the TRM.

> 
>    I'd just drop the _REG suffix.
> 
>> and B) this tells
>> you how many CFGCHIP registers there are, i.e. there is no CFGCHIP5_REG.
> 
>    You can tell that in a comment. Having a parametrized macro and using
> it to just #define more macros doesn't appeal to me at all...

Agree with Sergei, I don't prefer the additional #defines as well.

Regards,
Sekhar