[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6DD007A2E6@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:14:23 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Florian Fainelli' <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O
operations
> >>> +#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.
>
> The way I read David's comment is that instead of calling the macro with read, 48, just combine that
> in a single argument: read48. I don't have a preference about that and can respin eventually.
Indeed, factoring in the type is harder because reads want 'u64 *' not 'u64'.
While that could be factored, it would take more source lines and make
things very obfuscated.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists