[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200528134802.GE3606@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 14:48:02 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Mark Lee <Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..."
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Fabien Parent <fparent@...libre.com>,
Stephane Le Provost <stephane.leprovost@...iatek.com>,
Pedro Tsai <pedro.tsai@...iatek.com>,
Andrew Perepech <andrew.perepech@...iatek.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: provide helpers for simple bit operations
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 03:32:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> czw., 28 maj 2020 o 15:29 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> napisaĆ(a):
> > Why macros and not static inlines?
> The existing regmap_update_bits_*() helpers are macros too, so I tried
> to stay consistent. Any reason why they are macros and not static
> inlines? If there's none, then why not convert them too? Otherwise
> we'd have a static inline expanding a macro which in turn is calling a
> function (regmap_update_bits_base()).
Not really, I think it was just that they're argument tables. It'd be
good to convert them.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists