On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:45:59AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > 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. :-)
When we get to 8 or 10 patches, we can figure out what a do_microcode_patch*() macro might look like :) -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
