On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:49:32 +0000 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:56:30PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote: > > > > +#define lread(port) __raw_readl(port) > > > > +#define lwrite(v, port) __raw_writel(v, port) > > > > > > Why is this necessary, and what does 'l' stand for? > > > > There is a huge list of macros below these definitions. By doing it > > this way, the macros still fit on 80 characters wide, while without > > them, I had split up the macros over several lines, which does not > > make it more readable. That's all. > > 'l' refers at the last letter of __raw_readl, and writel. Nothing special. > > So why not keep to the Linux convention? How about at_readl() and > at_writel() ? Something like this perhaps? #define at_readl(port, off) __raw_readl((port)->membase + (off)) #define at_writel(v, port, off) __raw_writel(v, (port)->membase + (off)) #define UART_PUT_CR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_CR) #define UART_PUT_MR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_MR) #define UART_PUT_IER(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_IER) #define UART_PUT_IDR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_IDR) #define UART_PUT_CHAR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_THR) #define UART_PUT_BRGR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_BRGR) #define UART_PUT_RTOR(port, v) at_writel(v, port, ATMEL_US_RTOR) That said, I wonder if it may actually be nicer to just use at_writel()/at_readl() throughout the driver...but that's for a later cleanup. > > > > > > > + while (!(UART_GET_CSR(port) & ATMEL_US_TXEMPTY)) > > > > + barrier(); > > > > > > Should probably use cpu_relax(), but it's probably out of scope for a > > > codingstyle cleanup patch (and I don't think it matters on AVR32 or > > > ARM.) > > > > Agree. > > Even though it doesn't matter at the moment, I rather like to think a > bit about the future. If the kernel has a simple and cheap mechanism > there's no reason to avoid using it. I can do it in a separate patch. > > > > > > /* > > > > - * First, save IMR and then disable interrupts > > > > + * First, save IMR and then disable interrupts > > > > */ > > > > imr = UART_GET_IMR(port); /* get interrupt mask */ > > > > UART_PUT_IDR(port, ATMEL_US_RXRDY | ATMEL_US_TXRDY); > > > > @@ -790,30 +828,32 @@ static void atmel_console_write(struct c > > > > uart_console_write(port, s, count, atmel_console_putchar); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > - * Finally, wait for transmitter to become empty > > > > - * and restore IMR > > > > + * Finally, wait for transmitter to become empty > > > > + * and restore IMR > > > > */ > > > > > > Looks like you're replacing TABs with spaces. Why? > > > > ???? > > I think someone's mailer might be messing with the patches. The above > removed and added lines appear to be identical. Yes, the difference was wiped out after a few times back and forth. It was visible (or...not actually visible, but you know how to detect these things) in the first couple of e-mails. Haavard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
