From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] ARM: OMAP2+: gpmc: waitpin helper Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4FDA5252.2050401@ti.com> References: <4FD6783D.9030208@ti.com> <4FD78748.2080504@ti.com> <4FD8B55E.6010701@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:51593 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754220Ab2FNVGW (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:06:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Mohammed, Afzal" Cc: "tony@atomide.com" , "paul@pwsan.com" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Hi Afzal, On 06/14/2012 03:48 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 21:14:30, Hunter, Jon wrote: >> On 06/13/2012 02:37 AM, Mohammed, Afzal wrote: > >>> In that case we would be directly depending on user flag whose value may >>> or may not change and I don't think it is good to directly depend on it >>> for waitpin # calculation. >> >> You are already dependent on it. In other words, you are going to set > > What I meant is we are not dependent on absolute value of flag to > find waitpin, and I disagree in depending on its absolute value, > which can change, while flag would be the same. As long as we can avoid having multiple #defines for the same thing, I don't mind how it is done. Jon