On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:00 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > On 02/11/11 12:58, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 12:51 -0800, Steve Muckle wrote: > >> On 02/11/11 12:42, Daniel Walker wrote: > >>>> static struct resource msm_iommu_jpegd_resources[] = { > >>>> { > >>>> - .start = MSM_IOMMU_JPEGD_PHYS, > >>>> - .end = MSM_IOMMU_JPEGD_PHYS + MSM_IOMMU_JPEGD_SIZE - 1, > >>>> + .start = 0x07300000, > >>>> + .end = 0x07300000 + SZ_1M - 1, > >>> > >>> Looks worse .. Just put the macros into a static header file for both. > >> > >> Why bother defining macros for these if they only appear here? I don't > >> think that adds any value or readability - these addresses are clearly > >> the physical area for the msm_iommu_jpegd. It just makes it more > >> annoying to have to look up the values in a separate file if you are > >> wondering what they are. > > > > So your saying if you look at the number 0x07300000 you instantly know > > that this JPEGD? > > Yes, because it's the start address for the msm_iommu_jpegd resource. Yeah I guess that's true .. I still think it's better design not to do it this way. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html