On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 22:55 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > 
> > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7)
> > > +static inline char
> > > +__dcc_getchar(void)
> > > +{
> > > + char __c;
> > > +
> > > + asm("mrc p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0  @ read comms data reg"
> > > +         : "=r" (__c) : : "cc");
> > > +
> > > + return __c;
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline char
> > > +__dcc_getchar(void)
> > > +{
> > > + char __c;
> > > +
> > > + asm(
> > > + "get_wait:      mrc p14, 0, pc, c0, c1, 0                   \n\
> > > +                 bne get_wait                                    \n\
> > > +                 mrc p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0       @ read comms data reg"
> > > +         : "=r" (__c) : : "cc");
> > > +
> > > + return __c;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_CPU_V7)
> > > +static inline void
> > > +__dcc_putchar(char c)
> > > +{
> > > + asm("mcr p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0  @ write a char"
> > > +         : /* no output register */
> > > +         : "r" (c) : "cc");
> > > +}
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline void
> > > +__dcc_putchar(char c)
> > > +{
> > > + asm(
> > > + "put_wait:      mrc p14, 0, pc, c0, c1, 0                   \n\
> > > +                 bcs put_wait                                \n\
> > > +                 mcr p14, 0, %0, c0, c5, 0                   "
> > > + : : "r" (c) : "cc");
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Please move the #ifdef conditionals inside the respective functions so 
> > to have only one function pair with the various alternatives embedded 
> > into them.
> 
> My typical clean up policy is do to the inverse of what your suggesting.
> Mainly because that's the method that I see used extensive in generic
> parts of the kernel.

Do you have an example?  I don't see such thing in generic code, unless 
two versions of the same function are totally different.  In this case 
you have only the inner inline asm code that is different.

> From my perspective there are pluses an minuses to both. Your method
> reduces lines, and duplication. My method makes the code easier to read.

I disagree.  In reviewing your patch I had to go back and forth between 
the different versions just to figure out what was actually different to 
justify this #ifdef in the first place.  If the #ifdef..#endif was 
surrounding only the different inline asm statements then the difference 
would have been more obvious.


Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to