From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:00:51 +0000
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] ARM: assembler: Add uniform assembler framework
In-Reply-To: <20120301114942.GA2040@linaro.org>
References: <1330455586-10353-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org>
 <20120228192458.GC3617@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120301114942.GA2040@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20120301130051.GE7363@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:49:42AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> Are you still interested in this series?
> 
> I have a workaround for the above now, but it's not pretty -- I seem to
> have opened a can of worms here.
> 
> 
> We would need something like
> 
> #define EXTENDED_ASM(stuff) asm ( ".include \"macros.inc\"\n\t" stuff )
> #define EXTENDED_VASM(stuff) asm volatile ( ".include \"macros.inc\"\n\t" stuff )
> 
> ...where macros.inc includes some logic to protect against multiple
> inclusion.
> 
> This would avoid problems caused by reordering done by the compiler.
> 
> I think this can work, but it may be a step too far...

I'm fairly tempted to say: "if it ain't broke, don't fix".  AFAIK no one
has reported problems here, so lets not hastily try to fix something that
will error out if it does go wrong.