From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:07:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: i.MX51: clean up iomux-mx51.h In-Reply-To: <4E4422B6.6090609@boundarydevices.com> References: <1313026292-945-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <1313026292-945-2-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com> <4E4422B6.6090609@boundarydevices.com> Message-ID: <20110812070736.GJ31404@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 > > 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 > >> +#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 |