Hi Arun, On 26 June 2013 12:18, Arun Kumar K <arunkk.samsung@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Arun, >> >>> @@ -684,5 +685,6 @@ void set_work_bit_irqsave(struct s5p_mfc_ctx *ctx); >>> (dev->variant->port_num ? 1 : 0) : 0) : 0) >>> #define IS_TWOPORT(dev) (dev->variant->port_num == 2 ? 1 : 0) >>> #define IS_MFCV6_PLUS(dev) (dev->variant->version >= 0x60 ? 1 : 0) >>> +#define IS_MFCV7(dev) (dev->variant->version >= 0x70 ? 1 : 0) >> >> Considering the definition and pattern, wouldn't it be appropriate to >> call this IS_MFCV7_PLUS? >> > > We are still not sure about MFCv8 if it can re-use v7 stuff or not. > OK. In that case probably we can restrict the definition to (dev->variant->version == 0x70 ? 1 : 0). -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
