From: Hariprasad S <haripra...@chelsio.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 21:45:10 +0530
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 14:54:43 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Hariprasad Shenai <haripra...@chelsio.com> >> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 08:20:54 +0530 >> >> > It's not really the "hardware" which generates these hardware constant >> > symbolic >> > macros/register defines of course, it's scripts developed by the hardware >> > team. >> > Various patches have ended up changing the style of the symbolic >> > macros/register >> > defines and some of them used the macros/register defines that matches the >> > output of the script from the hardware team. >> >> We've told you that we don't care what format your internal whatever uses >> for these macros. >> >> We have standards, tastes, and desires and reasons for naming macros >> in a certain way in upstream kernel code. >> >> I consider it flat out unacceptable to use macros with one letter >> prefixes like "S_". You simply should not do this. >> > > Okay. We’ll clean up all of the macros to match the files' original style. We > do need to change the sense of the *_MASK macros since they don’t match how > we > use them as field tokens. Also the *_SHIFT, *_MASK and *_GET names are > sucking up space and making lines wrap unnecessarily, creating readability > problems. Can we change these to *_S, *_M and *_G? E.g.: That's fine.
