From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: merez@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] scsi: ufs: wrap the i/o access operations Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 00:49:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <002001ce4105$afbcf000$0f36d000$%jun@samsung.com> <5178B5C9.90000@codeaurora.org> <000b01ce423b$d626e520$8274af60$%jun@samsung.com> <517FA9AA.1060101@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:52815 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754148Ab3EAHt0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 May 2013 03:49:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <517FA9AA.1060101@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Subhash Jadavani Cc: Seungwon Jeon , 'Sujit Reddy Thumma' , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, 'Vinayak Holikatti' , 'Santosh Y' , "'James E.J. Bottomley'" Tested-by: Maya Erez I also tend to agree with Sujit on the order of the wrappers parameters. Thanks, Maya > On 4/26/2013 10:36 AM, Seungwon Jeon wrote: >> 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? > > I somehow tend to agree with what Sujit suggested. Its good to be > consitent with writel() for better code readability. > >> >> 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 >> -- >> 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 > > -- > 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 > -- Maya Erez QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation