[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adbd6481-4ea0-0e9b-5249-9ab2b843a450@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:33:08 +0200
From: Philipp Hortmann <philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] staging: vt6655: Rename dwData to reg_value in four
macros
On 7/18/22 08:07, Joe Perches wrote:
> Please remember that checkpatch is a stupid little scripted tool
> and the actual goal is to have readable code.
Understood.
>
> Look a bit beyond the code and see if and how you could make the
> code better.
>
> All of these macros have the same form and logic.
>
That is the reason why I put them all together in one static function:
static void vt6655_mac_dma_ctl(void __iomem *iobase, u8 reg_index)
{
unsigned long reg_value;
reg_value = ioread32(iobase + reg_index);
if (reg_value & DMACTL_RUN)
iowrite32(DMACTL_WAKE, iobase + reg_index);
else
iowrite32(DMACTL_RUN, iobase + reg_index);
}
> Perhaps it'd be better to use another indirect macro and define
> all of these with that new macro.
>
> Something like:
>
> #define mac_v(iobase, reg) \
> do { \
> void __iomem *addr = (iobase) + (reg); \
> iowrite32(ioread32(addr) & DMACTL_RUN ? DMACTL_WAKE : DMACTL_RUN,\
> addr); \
> } while (0)
>
> #define MACvReceive0(iobase) mac_v(iobase, MAC_REG_RXDMACTL0)
> #define MACvReceive1(iobase) mac_v(iobase, MAC_REG_RXDMACTL1)
> #define MACvTransmit0(iobase) mac_v(iobase, MAC_REG_TXDMACTL0)
> #define MACvTransmitAC0(iobase) mac_v(iobase, MAC_REG_AC0DMACTL)
That is an interesting solution. But for me this code is not as good
readable as my proposal. Reason is that I struggle with the function in
function with condition broken into two lines.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists