Re: [PATCH 3/3] at91_mci: introduce per-mci-revision conditional code

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 12:04 Thu 17 Jul     , Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > We used to manage features and differences on a per-cpu basis. As several
> > cpus share the same mci revision, this patch aggregates cpus that have the
> > same IP revision in one defined constant.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c |   21 +++++++++++++--------
> > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
> > index 4e3edf3..a95529c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/at91_mci.c
> > @@ -80,6 +80,11 @@
> >
> > #define DRIVER_NAME "at91_mci"
> >
> > +#define AT91MCI_REV2	(  cpu_is_at91sam9260() \
> > +			|| cpu_is_at91sam9263() \
> > +			|| cpu_is_at91cap9() \
> > +			|| cpu_is_at91sam9rl())
> > +
> 
> How about making it an inline function to avoid the horrible
> upper-case all throughtout?
> 
How about also naming as at91mci_is_rev2() to a few more explicit?

Best Regards,
J.