On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 03:01:22 +0000 Hayes Wang <hayeswang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 6:57 PM > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Marek Behún wrote: > > > I thought that static inline functions are preferred to macros, since > > > compiler warns better if they are used incorrectly... > > > > Citation needed. Also, how do static inline functions wrapped in macros > > (i.e. your patch) stack up against your claim about better warnings? > > I guess ease of maintainership should prevail here, and Hayes should > > have the final word. I don't really have any stake here. > > I agree with Vladimir Oltean. > > I prefer to the way of easy maintaining. > I don't understand the advantage which you discuss. > However, if I am not familiar with the code, this patch > would let me take more time to find out the declarations > of these functions. This make it harder to trace the code. Hi Hayes, just to be clear: Are you against defining these functions via macros? If so, I can simply rewrite this so that it does not use macros... Or are you against implementing these functions themselves? Should I abandon this at all? BTW, what about patch 5/5 which introduces *_modify helpers? Patch 5/5 simplifies the driver a lot, IMO, changing this ocp_data = usb_ocp_read_word(tp, USB_PM_CTRL_STATUS); ocp_data &= ~RESUME_INDICATE; usb_ocp_write_word(tp, USB_PM_CTRL_STATUS, ocp_data); into this usb_ocp_modify_word(tp, USB_PM_CTRL_STATUS, RESUME_INDICATE, 0); Marek
