From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dwalker@codeaurora.org (Daniel Walker)
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:00:22 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] msm: iommu: Generalize platform data for multiple
	targets
In-Reply-To: <8yad3mykzks.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com>
References: <1297456098-3241-1-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org>
	<1297456098-3241-2-git-send-email-stepanm@codeaurora.org>
	<1297456934.4852.11.camel@m0nster> <4D55A16A.7030300@codeaurora.org>
	<8yaipwql1wf.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com> <1297458889.4852.24.camel@m0nster>
	<8yad3mykzks.fsf@huya.qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <1297461622.4852.29.camel@m0nster>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:53 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Steve Muckle wrote:
> 
> >> If they were used in more than one place, we could justify the
> >> definition, but in this case, the definition just obscures the code
> >> slightly.
> 
> Someone debugging it will look at the constant.  In fact, in general,
> the only person looking at this structure will want to know the value in
> the table.  Indirecting it through a pointer only serves to hide it from
> the person who wants to know the value.

Like I said in my example, people looking at the code won't always be
debugging.

> > A good example might be if all these constants are enumerated in a
> > header file, but aren't all used. In that case it would be fairly easy
> > to add a new resource without even know what the constant is just by
> > following the pattern.
> 
> This I definitely want to avoid.  I have seen header files with hundreds
> of thousands of register definitions, where only a few were used.

I think your thinking of stuff that's not properly grouped.

> > I think in general this series just makes this iommu code very much
> > 8660/8960 only code, but what about the potential next iteration of SoC
> > that uses very similar code to this with all new constants. So this
> > doesn't seem forward thinking to me.
> 
> The table would have the different addresses in it.  My point is that
> the resource table _is_ the definition of the addres.  Nothing is gained
> by inventing yet another name and putting that somewhere else.

In my example I showed you there is something to be gained by doing
this. As you said already there isn't must lost in doing it this way.

Daniel

-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.