From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:07:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4/6] mfd: db8500-prcmu: get base address from resource In-Reply-To: References: <1363866553-15054-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <1669538.W5XG4BgH9e@wuerfel> Message-ID: <201303211907.49075.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 21 March 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Thursday 21 March 2013 12:49:11 Linus Walleij wrote: > >> -#define PRCM_PLLARM_LOCKP (_PRCMU_BASE + 0x0a8) > >> +#define PRCM_PLLARM_LOCKP (prcmu_base + 0x0a8) > >> #define PRCM_PLLARM_LOCKP_PRCM_PLLARM_LOCKP3 0x2 > > > > While this is certainly the least invasive way to get rid of _PRCMU_BASE, > > it sucks to refer to local variables in macros. How hard would it > > be to find all users of these macros and put the prcmu_base addition > > there? > > > > The rest of this patch looks fine to me. > > Basically I didn't want to disturb Lo?cs work on PRCMU refactoring, > but if it is require I can surely do this. That's probably a good enough reason to leave it alone for now, but we should remember to fix it up later. How about adding a comment in the header so we don't forget about it? Arnd