From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AE061A05B8 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:53:40 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:53:38 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.20]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDE219D803F for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:41:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by b03cxnp08028.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1MIrZt526411164 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:53:35 -0700 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1MIrYhZ016034 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:53:35 -0700 Reply-To: manoj@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH v4 11/18] cxl: Separate bare-metal fields in adapter and AFU data structures References: <1455658751-16970-12-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CA2CD1.7020908@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CA60E8.6090607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56CB4BF0.2040906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Frederic Barrat Cc: Ian Munsie , michael.neuling@au1.ibm.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org From: Manoj Kumar Message-ID: <56CB5942.9000104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:53:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56CB4BF0.2040906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 2/22/2016 11:57 AM, Frederic Barrat wrote: > Manoj, > > Point taken. Those constants are all defined in the architecture > document (CAIA). We should probably use more macros there. > However, since those were not introduced by this patch, I'll put it in > my todo list for the future, but don't intend to address it in this > patchset. > > Fred Fred: I am fine with this approach. -- Manoj Kumar