On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:34:06AM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: >> On Oct 8, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> + * Shortcut macros for patching code. >>> */ >>> + >>> +#define PATCH2000 \ >>> + dp = (uint *)(commproc->cp_dpmem); \ >>> + for (i=0; i<(sizeof(patch_2000)/4); i++) \ >>> + *dp++ = patch_2000[i]; >>> + >>> +#define PATCH2E00 \ >>> + dp = (uint *)&(commproc->cp_dpmem[0x0e00]); \ >>> + for (i=0; i<(sizeof(patch_2e00)/4); i++) \ >>> + *dp++ = patch_2e00[i]; >>> + >>> +#define PATCH2F00 \ >>> + dp = (uint *)&(commproc->cp_dpmem[0x0f00]); \ >>> + for (i=0; i<(sizeof(patch_2f00)/4); i++) \ >>> + *dp++ = patch_2f00[i]; >> >> Please get rid of these macros and place the code where it >> belongs. They add no value and just make it harder to >> read the code and understand what it does. > > I agree. If there were more patches it might make sense to write a > do_microcode_patch2(N) macro, but PATCH2NNN isn't "readable" and it's > only 3 patches.
fair enough, but keep in mind, the whole point was that what you're looking at is the minimal *infrastructure* for possibly adding more patches down the road. right *now*, there's only three because those are the only ones that were in micropatch.c at the moment. there's certainly a lot more available at freescale that can be added as time goes by. i'll put the actual code back in, but you might have second thoughts when we're up to 8 or 10 patches some day. :-) rday
