Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On Apr 6, 2020, at 20:17, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/hci.h >>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/hci.h >>> @@ -253,6 +253,10 @@ rtw_write8_mask(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u32 >>> addr, u32 mask, u8 data) >>> rtw_write8(rtwdev, addr, set); >>> } >>> >>> +#define rr8(addr) rtw_read8(rtwdev, addr) >>> +#define rr16(addr) rtw_read16(rtwdev, addr) >>> +#define rr32(addr) rtw_read32(rtwdev, addr) >> >> For me these macros reduce code readability, not improve anything. They >> hide the use of rtwdev variable, which is evil, and a name like rr8() is >> just way too vague. Please keep the original function names as is. > > The inspiration is from another driver. > readx_poll_timeout macro only takes one argument for the op. > Some other drivers have their own poll_timeout implementation, > and I guess it makes sense to make one specific for rtw88. I'm not even understanding the problem you are tying to fix with these macros. The upstream philosopyhy is to have the source code readable and maintainable, not to use minimal number of characters. There's a reason why we don't name our functions a(), b(), c() and so on. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
