From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] qla2xxx: Add ISP25XX support. Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:53:53 -0500 Message-ID: <1184885633.3464.114.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070719220456.GK4015@plap.qlogic.org> <11848827643315-git-send-email-andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hancock.steeleye.com ([71.30.118.248]:60582 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753609AbXGSWx4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:53:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11848827643315-git-send-email-andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Vasquez Cc: Linux SCSI Mailing List , Seokmann Ju On Thu, 2007-07-19 at 15:06 -0700, Andrew Vasquez wrote: > + dmp_reg = (uint32_t __iomem *)((uint8_t __iomem *)reg + 0xF0); > + WRT_REG_DWORD(dmp_reg, 0xB0100000); > + dmp_reg = (uint32_t __iomem *)((uint8_t __iomem *)reg + 0xFC); > + fw->shadow_reg[1] = htonl(RD_REG_DWORD(dmp_reg)); Repeating this horrible cast over and over again is really eye watering. If you can't simply extend the struct device_reg_24xx as device_reg_25xx or something which seems more logical, what about uint32_t __iomem *mailbox_reg_select = (uint32_t __iomem *)((uint8_t __iomem *)reg + 0xF0); uint32_t __iomem *mailbox_reg_value = (uint32_t __iomem *)((uint8_t __iomem *)reg + 0xFC); ? James