From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seungwon Jeon Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] scsi: ufs: wrap the i/o access operations Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:06:40 +0900 Message-ID: <000b01ce423b$d626e520$8274af60$%jun@samsung.com> References: <002001ce4105$afbcf000$0f36d000$%jun@samsung.com> <5178B5C9.90000@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]:18109 "EHLO mailout1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751175Ab3DZFGm (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:06:42 -0400 Received: from epcpsbgr4.samsung.com (u144.gpu120.samsung.co.kr [203.254.230.144]) by mailout1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MLU00EWTJHSXTN0@mailout1.samsung.com> for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:06:40 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: <5178B5C9.90000@codeaurora.org> Content-language: ko Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: 'Sujit Reddy Thumma' Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, 'Vinayak Holikatti' , 'Santosh Y' , "'James E.J. Bottomley'" Hi, On Thursday, April 25, 2013, Sujit Reddy Thumma wrote: > On 4/24/2013 9:36 PM, Seungwon Jeon wrote: > > Simplify operations with hiding mmio_base. > > > > Signed-off-by: Seungwon Jeon > > --- > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.c | 106 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- > > drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h | 5 ++ > > 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > index 1680394..6728450 100644 > > --- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd.h > > @@ -190,4 +190,9 @@ int ufshcd_init(struct device *, struct ufs_hba ** , void __iomem * , > > unsigned int); > > void ufshcd_remove(struct ufs_hba *); > > > > +#define ufshcd_writel(hba, reg, val) \ > > Let this be consistent with writel() arguments - "val" as second arg and > "reg" as third? You got a point there. When considering an array of arguments in two functions and value part can be some long expression, I think it seems more coherent. ufshcd_readl(hba, reg); ufshcd_writel(hba, reg, val); How about keeping these? Thanks, Seungwon Jeon > > > + writel((val), (hba)->mmio_base + (reg)) > > +#define ufshcd_readl(hba, reg) \ > > + readl((hba)->mmio_base + (reg)) > > + > > #endif /* End of Header */ > > > > -- > Regards, > Sujit > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html