Hi Linus,
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:16:22AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Jacopo Mondi
> <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Add PIN_CONF_UNPACK_PARAM and PIN_CONF_UNPACK_ARGS macros useful to
> > unpack generic properties and their arguments
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> (...)
>
> /*
> * Helpful configuration macro to be used in tables etc.
>
> Then this should say "macros" rather than "macro".
>
> > -#define PIN_CONF_PACKED(p, a) ((a << 8) | ((unsigned long) p & 0xffUL))
> > +#define PIN_CONF_PACKED(p, a) (((a) << 8) | ((unsigned long) (p) & 0xffUL))
>
> Also adding some extra parantheses I see.
>
> > +#define PIN_CONF_UNPACK_PARAM(c) ((c) & 0xffUL)
> > +#define PIN_CONF_UNPACK_ARGS(c) ((c) >> 8)
>
> But why.
>
> I have these two static inlines just below your new macros:
>
> static inline enum pin_config_param pinconf_to_config_param(unsigned
> long config)
> {
> return (enum pin_config_param) (config & 0xffUL);
> }
>
> static inline u32 pinconf_to_config_argument(unsigned long config)
> {
> return (u32) ((config >> 8) & 0xffffffUL);
> }
>
> Why can't you use this in your code instead of macros?
>
> We generally prefer static inlines over macros because they are easier
> to read.
>
Right. I haven't noticed them.
I'll drop this patch, sorry for noise
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
