From: Matthias Fuchs <matthias.fuchs@esd.eu>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] 4xx: add support for new PMC440 revision
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:21:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53298BC6.9010402@esd.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53298303.1050402@denx.de>
On 19.03.2014 12:44, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> - if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);
>> - }
>> + if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",
>> + CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",
>> + CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",
>> + CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",
>> + CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",
>> + CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);
>> + }
>>
>> - if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);
>> - miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);
>> + if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",
>> + CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",
>> + CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",
>> + CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",
>> + CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);
>> + miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",
>> + CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);
>> + }
>
> This if () section looks very similar to the one before in this patch.
> Only difference is the string "ppc_4xx_eth1". Can't you move this code
> into a function to reduce the code size?
>
> I know this code duplication was not introduced with this patch. But it
> makes sense to simplify this now for my taste.
You might be right. But I will put it into a separate "refacturing"
patch. Stay tuned.
Matthias
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-19 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-19 9:25 [U-Boot] [PATCH] 4xx: add support for new PMC440 revision Matthias Fuchs
2014-03-19 11:44 ` Stefan Roese
2014-03-19 12:21 ` Matthias Fuchs [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53298BC6.9010402@esd.eu \
--to=matthias.fuchs@esd.eu \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox