From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: buytenh@wantstofly.org (Lennert Buytenhek)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:10:35 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 30/54] ARM: msm: irq_data conversion.
In-Reply-To: <1291157875.3721.18.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
References: <cover.1291118519.git.buytenh@wantstofly.org>
	<20101130133700.GE15575@mail.wantstofly.org>
	<1291157875.3721.18.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Message-ID: <20101201001035.GH15575@mail.wantstofly.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 02:57:55PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:

> > -static void msm_irq_ack(unsigned int irq)
> > +static void msm_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
> >  {
> > -       void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, irq);
> > -       irq = 1 << (irq & 31);
> > -       writel(irq, reg);
> > +       void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
> > +       writel(1 << (d->irq & 31), reg);
> >  } 
> 
> I haven't really looked over this patch set as a whole, but I was
> looking at this section and I noticed that your doing a small clean up
> here. If your doing this kind of conversion it's much nicer if you do
> any cleanups prior to submitting the conversion. Everyone might agree on
> the conversion that your doing, but when you interleave cleanups then
> people may be agreeing to things that are hidden inside the conversion..

Since:

	irq = 1 << (irq & 31);

modifies an argument to the function, I couldn't just change this
into:

	d->irq = 1 << (d->irq & 31);

as that would clobber d->irq permanently.


So my options were to do either:

	void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
	writel(1 << (d->irq & 31), reg);

or:

	void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
	unsigned int irq = d->irq;
	irq = 1 << (irq & 31);
	writel(irq, reg);


If you prefer the latter, I'd be happy to change the patch to the
latter.