Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: da8xx-cfgchip: New header file for CFGCHIP registers.

From	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: da8xx-cfgchip: New header file for CFGCHIP registers.
Date	2016-04-11 10:30 +0200
Message-ID	<rmFon-2Ng-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rgnku-1AF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rgnku-1AF-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <rgDIC-55j-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rhGXM-ml-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <rhIwx-1e8-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday 28 March 2016 10:12 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 03/28/2016 06:02 PM, David Lechner wrote:
> 
>>>> +/* register offsets */
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP_REG(n)                (n * 4)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP0_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(0)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP1_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(1)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP2_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(2)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP3_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(3)
>>>> +#define CFGCHIP4_REG                CFGCHIP_REG(4)
>>>
>>>     Why not just use CFGCHIP_REG(n) directly?
>>
>> I considered that, but I went this way because A) the TRM uses, for
>> example,
>> "CFGCHIP2", so I wanted to keep "CFGCHIP" and "2" together

IMO, this is not that big of an issue. Anyone reading should be able to
make out that CFGCHIP_REG(0) is same as CFGCHIP0 referred to in the TRM.

> 
>    I'd just drop the _REG suffix.
> 
>> and B) this tells
>> you how many CFGCHIP registers there are, i.e. there is no CFGCHIP5_REG.
> 
>    You can tell that in a comment. Having a parametrized macro and using
> it to just #define more macros doesn't appeal to me at all...

Agree with Sergei, I don't prefer the additional #defines as well.

Regards,
Sekhar

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] mfd: da8xx-cfgchip: New header file for CFGCHIP  registers. Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> - 2016-04-11 10:30 +0200

csiph-web