[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tvzy93ew.fsf@weeman.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:19:35 -0400
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'Florian Fainelli' <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"netdev\@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "davem\@davemloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"andrew\@lunn.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations
Hi David,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> writes:
> From: Florian Fainelli
>> Sent: 18 September 2017 22:41
>> Instead of repeating the same pattern: acquire mutex, read/write, release
>> mutex, define a macro: b53_build_op() which takes the type (read|write), I/O
>> size, and value (scalar or pointer). This helps with fixing bugs that could
>> exit (e.g: missing barrier, lock etc.).
> ....
>> +#define b53_build_op(type, op_size, val_type) \
>> +static inline int b53_##type##op_size(struct b53_device *dev, u8 page, \
>> + u8 reg, val_type val) \
>> +{ \
>> + int ret; \
>> + \
>> + mutex_lock(&dev->reg_mutex); \
>> + ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val); \
>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->reg_mutex); \
>> + \
>> + return ret; \
>> }
>
> Why separate the 'type' and 'op_size' arguments since they
> are always pasted together?
For read/write48, the value type is u64.
Thanks,
Vivien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists