On 4/26/2013 10:36 AM, Seungwon Jeon wrote:
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?
I somehow tend to agree with what Sujit suggested. Its good to be
consitent with writel() for better code readability.
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
--
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
