On Thu 02 Oct 15:38 PDT 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 09/29/14 17:34, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > + > > +#define GET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param) \ > > + (channel->rx_info_word ? \ > > + channel->rx_info_word->param : \ > > + channel->rx_info->param) > > + > > +#define GET_TX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param) \ > > + (channel->rx_info_word ? \ > > + channel->tx_info_word->param : \ > > + channel->tx_info->param) > > + > > +#define SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param, value) \ > > + (channel->rx_info_word ? \ > > + (channel->rx_info_word->param = value) : \ > > + (channel->rx_info->param = value)) > > + > > +#define SET_TX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param, value) \ > > + (channel->rx_info_word ? \ > > Drive-by review: Should this be tx_info_word? Given that it works I > wonder why not just have a flag indicating if we should use word aligned > read/write vs. byte aligned. > You're right, that should be tx - but from the way things both channels will always be of the same type, so it will simply work. I had a separate flag, but instead of having 4 members in the struct to indicate if I was dealing with word aligned access I had 5. So I dropped it. > > + (channel->tx_info_word->param = value) : \ > > + (channel->tx_info->param = value)) > > + > Regards, Bjorn -- 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
