Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:35:44 -0400 | From | Andres Salomon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] gxfb: create DC/VP/FP-specific handlers rather than using readl/writel |
| |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:24:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:48:26 -0500 > Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote: > > > +#define read_dc(reg) readl(par->dc_regs + (reg)) > > +#define write_dc(reg, val) writel((val), par->dc_regs + (reg)) > > + > > +#define read_vp(reg) readl(par->vid_regs + (reg)) > > +#define write_vp(reg, val) writel((uint32_t) (val), \ > > + par->vid_regs + (reg)) > > + > > +#define read_fp(reg) readl(par->vid_regs + (reg)) > > +#define write_fp(reg, val) writel((uint32_t) (val), \ > > + par->vid_regs + (reg)) > > + > > Not very nice, sorry. They're macros, and macros rather suck. And they > implicitly rely upon the caller having some variable called "par" in scope. > > It would be much nicer to do > > /* > * documentation goes here > */ > static inline u32 read_dc(struct geodefb_par *par, int reg) > { > return readl(par->dc_regs, reg); > } > > no?
I can change it if you'd like (although.. sigh.)
However, it's a lot of extra passing around of the 'par' without any good reason. Normal I prefer inline functions to macros as well, but I don't see the point here.
| |