Hi, On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote: > On 4/24/2013 9:36 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote: > > Simplify operations with hiding mmio_base. > > > > Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon <tgih.jun@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 5 ++ > > 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > index 1680394..6728450 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > @@ -190,4 +190,9 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct device *, struct ufs_hba ** , void __iomem * , > > unsigned int); > > void ufshcd_remove(struct ufs_hba *); > > > > +#define ufshcd_writel(hba, reg, val) \ > > Let this be consistent with writel() arguments - "val" as second arg and > "reg" as third? You got a point there. When considering an array of arguments in two functions and value part can be some long expression, I think it seems more coherent. ufshcd_readl(hba, reg); ufshcd_writel(hba, reg, val); How about keeping these? Thanks, Seungwon Jeon > > > + writel((val), (hba)->mmio_base + (reg)) > > +#define ufshcd_readl(hba, reg) \ > > + readl((hba)->mmio_base + (reg)) > > + > > #endif /* End of Header */ > > > > -- > Regards, > Sujit > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
