Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:48:42 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] gxfb: create DC/VP/FP-specific handlers rather than using readl/writel |
| |
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:35:44 -0400 Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> 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. >
It'll generate the same (or similar) code in both versions.
Code is written once and is read thousands of times, so we should optimise for readers, not writers. And I do think that being conventional here helps readability, even if it does add a bit more source code.
| |