[PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: i.MX51: clean up iomux-mx51.h

[s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer)]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:43:02AM -0700, Troy Kisky wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 7:53 AM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Troy,
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Troy Kisky
> > <troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> index df6acc0..c7f5169 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/iomux-mx51.h
> >> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> >>  #define __MACH_IOMUX_MX51_H__
> >>
> >>  #include <mach/iomux-v3.h>
> >> +#define __NA_  0x000
> >> +
> > 
> > Do we really need this __NA_ define? Can?t we continue just writing 0
> > in the macro?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Fabio Estevam
> 
> First, welcome back from vacation and thanks for taking the time to review.
> 
> I like the __NA_ macro for a couple of reasons.
> 
> 
> 1. It keeps the macro arguments aligned from line to line. 5 character
> name so that a line that uses 0xnnn instead, usually has its arguments
> aligned with a line that uses __NA_.
> 
> 2. It makes it more obvious that this field is "not applicable" to this
> setting.
> 
> 3. NON_PAD_I is replaced with __NA_ as it has the same use, and keeps
> alignment.

I'm fine with the __NA_ macro.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |