[PATCH 3/3] staging: ccree: simplify ioread/iowrite

Tobin C. Harding me at tobin.cc
Mon Nov 6 20:24:48 UTC 2017


On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 04:46:54PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 10:59:47AM +0200, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Tobin C. Harding <me at tobin.cc> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 06:55:52AM +0000, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> > >> Registers ioread/iowrite operations were done via macros,
> > >> sometime using a "magical" implicit parameter.
> > >>
> > >> Replace all register access with simple inline macros.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad at benyossef.com>
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Nice work. I had a little trouble following this one. Perhaps you are
> > > doing more than one thing per patch, feel free to ignore me if I am
> > > wrong but it seems you are moving the macro definition of CC_REG to a
> > > different header, adding the new inline functions and doing some other
> > > change that I can't grok (commented on below).
> > >
> > > Perhaps this patch could be broken up.
> > 
> > Thank you Tobin.
> > 
> > The original macro that I am replacing had an assumption of a variable void *
> > cc_base being defined in the context of the macro being called, even though
> > it was not listed in the explicit parameter list of the macro.
> > 
> > The inline function that replace it instead takes an explicit
> > parameter a pointer to
> > struct ssi_drive data * , who has said cc_base as one of the fields.
> > 
> > As a result several function that took a void * cc_base parameter
> > (which is than only
> > used implicitly via the macro without ever being visibly referenced), now take
> > struct ssi_drive data * parameter instead which is passed explicitly
> > to the inline
> > function.
> > 
> > These seems to be the places you are referring to. They are cascading changes
> > resulting from the change in API between the macro and the inline
> > function that replaces it.
> > 
> > I imagine I can try to break that change to two patches but at least
> > in my mind this is artificial
> > and it is a single logical change.
> > 
> > Having said that, if you think otherwise and consider this
> > none-reviewable even after this
> > explanation let me know and  I'd be happy to break it down.
> 
> Nah, this is fine, I'll take it as-is.  Tobin, thanks for the review.

No worries. Greg make sure you yell at me if I start causing you more
work than I'm saving. It's a fine line reviewing patches when you are
not super experienced.

thanks,
Tobin.


More information about the devel mailing list