Hi Andy,
On 27.06.2017 10:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, 2017-06-22 at 21:00 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:50:57PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
On 22.06.2017 15:00, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:20:49PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
On 14.06.2017 10:25, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:00:48AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
+#define MSGDMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN 0xffffffff
GENAMSK?
I'm personally not a big fan of GENMASK. BIT(x) is good for
single
bits, but GENMASK usually looks lees clear - at least to me. So
if
you do not insist in this change, I would like to keep the
masks.
Well GENMASK(14, 11) tell me that it means mask of bit 14 thru 11,
which is
way clear than 0x7800 :)
In this specific case, I see your point and would be willing to make
this change gladly. But in the case above, its a the largest number
of a u32 variable. I find it more confusing using GENMASK here.
Probably there is a macro already for this u32(-1) value, that I
should use instead.
I think there is something, but can't recall which one. Andy?
Since it's a maximum length of transfer on the one hand and in the
hardware is actually a mask (bits are used for transfer length) you may
choose one of
U32_MAX
GENMASK(31, 0)
My personal preference is GENMASK(), since it's slightly closer to what
hardware does inside.
My personal preference would be U32_MAX in this case.
Vinod, do you want me to send a v3 of the mSGDMA patch with one of
those defines used? Which one do you prefer, I really have no strong
feelings here.
Thanks,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
