Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sachin Kamat [mailto:sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:05 AM > To: Arun Kumar K > Cc: Arun Kumar K; LMML; Kamil Debski; jtp.park@xxxxxxxxxxx; Sylwester > Nawrocki; Hans Verkuil; avnd.kiran@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] [media] s5p-mfc: Core support for MFC v7 > > 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). > > Guys, I think that simple ((dev->variant->version & 0xF0) == 0x70) would cover every 7.x version. Same could apply to versions 6.x and 5.x. Then instead of using IS_MFCV6_PLUS(dev) one would use IS_MFCV6(dev) || IS_MFCV7(dev). This is a bit longer, but if version 8 will be totally different from v7 then it is much better to use v6||v7 instead of v6_plus. Best wishes, -- Kamil Debski Linux Kernel Developer Samsung R&D Institute Poland -- 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
