[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: unsigned long ioremap()?
At 3:18 AM -0400 2001-05-03, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>"David S. Miller" wrote:
>> There is a school of thought which believes that:
> > struct xdev_regs {
>> u32 reg1;
>> u32 reg2;
>> };
> >
>> val = readl(&regs->reg2);
>> is cleaner than:
>> #define REG1 0x00
>> #define REG2 0x04
>> val = readl(regs + REG2);
>> I'm personally ambivalent and believe that both cases should be allowed.
>Agreed... Tangent a bit, I wanted to plug using macros which IMHO make
>code even more readable:
> val = RTL_R32(REG2);
> RTL_W32(REG2, val);
>Since these are driver-private, if you are only dealing with one chip
>you could even shorten things to "R32" and "W32", if that doesn't offend
>any sensibilities :)

With a little arithmetic behind the scenes and a NULL pointer to the
struct xdev, you could have:

struct xdev_regs {
u32 reg1;
u32 reg2;
} *xdr = 0;

#define RTL_R32(REG) readl(cookie+(unsigned long)(&xdr->REG))

cookie = ioremap(blah, blah);

val = RTL_R32(reg2);

...and have the benefits of the R32 macro as well as the use of
structure members.
/Jonathan Lundell.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:2.085 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site