On Sep 6, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:01 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 13:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Jia Hongtao wrote: >>>>> + msi->feature |= MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> /* >>>>> * Remember the phandle, so that we can match with any PCI nodes >>>>> * that have an "fsl,msi" property. >>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h >>>>> index 8225f86..7389e8e 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h >>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h >>>>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ >>>>> #define FSL_PIC_IP_IPIC 0x00000002 >>>>> #define FSL_PIC_IP_VMPIC 0x00000003 >>>>> >>>>> +#define MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN 0x00000010 >>>>> + >>>> >>>> Why does this need to be in the header, why not just have it in the .c only >>> >>> Didn't you ask this last time around? :-) >>> >>> This flag is part of the same numberspace as FSL_PIC_IP_xxx and thus >>> should be defined in the same place. >> >> I probably did, if its part of the FSL_PIC_IP_xxx namespace, than lets >> remove blank line between things to make that a bit more clear > > It's not part of the FSL_PIC_IP_MASK subnumberspace though, just the > overall msi->features numberspace. > > It would be nice if these symbols could have some sort of prefix in > common, though. > > -Scott
Maybe we should do something like MSI_FTR_ as a prefix - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev