[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <276e40e8-6539-2765-7ce7-9a942b56d54d@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 14:20:16 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Cc: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@...madesigns.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@....com>,
David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>,
Phuong Nguyen <phuong_nguyen@...madesigns.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] PCI: Add tango PCIe host bridge support
On 25/05/17 13:41, Mason wrote:
> On 25/05/2017 14:23, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 25/05/17 13:00, Mason wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2017 10:48, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> Please have some defines for these magic values.
>>>
>>> Typical driver do
>>> #define MUX_OFFSET 0x48
>>> and then access the register's value through
>>> readl_relaxed(pcie->base + MUX_OFFSET);
>>>
>>> I can't do that because the registers were shuffled around
>>> between revision 1 and revision 2. Thus, instead of an
>>> explicitly-named macro (MUX_OFFSET), I used an explicitly-
>>> named field (pcie->mux) and access the register's value
>>> through readl_relaxed(pcie->mux);
>>
>> That doesn't prevent you from having a TANGO_V1_MUX_OFFSET define, which
>> you can supplement with a V2 at some point.
>>
>>> This is equivalent to providing the offset definitions in the
>>> init functions, instead of at the top of the file.
>>
>> Sorry, my brain parses text far better than hex number.
>
> Well, the hex numbers do need to show up somewhere :-)
>
> IIUC, you're saying that
> #define MUX_OFFSET 0x48
> is clearer than
> pcie->mux = base + 0x48;
yes.
>
> OK, I can accept that. Maybe our brains have been trained
> to easily recognize and ingest the macro, or maybe it's
> the caps, or maybe the fact that the statement does
> several things (addition and assignment and hex).
>
> Out of curiosity, how would you feel about
> pcie->MUX_OFFSET = 0x48;
> and then using
> readl_relaxed(pcie->base + pcie->MUX_OFFSET);
>
> It feels weird to me, I think mostly because it is
> an unusual pattern.
Exactly. Use existing practices help the reviewers quite a lot.
>
> Anyway, I'll add the macros, if that improves review and
> maintenance.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists