On September 19, 2017 7:19:35 AM PDT, Vivien Didelot
<vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> writes:
>
>> From: Florian Fainelli
>>> Sent: 18 September 2017 22:41
>>> Instead of repeating the same pattern: acquire mutex, read/write,
>release
>>> mutex, define a macro: b53_build_op() which takes the type
>(read|write), I/O
>>> size, and value (scalar or pointer). This helps with fixing bugs
>that could
>>> exit (e.g: missing barrier, lock etc.).
>> ....
>>> +#define b53_build_op(type, op_size, val_type) \
>>> +static inline int b53_##type##op_size(struct b53_device *dev, u8
>page, \
>>> + u8 reg, val_type val)
>>> \
>>> +{
>>> \
>>> + int ret;
>>> \
>>> +
>>> \
>>> + mutex_lock(&dev->reg_mutex);
>>> \
>>> + ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val);
>>> \
>>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->reg_mutex);
>>> \
>>> +
>>> \
>>> + return ret;
>>> \
>>> }
>>
>> Why separate the 'type' and 'op_size' arguments since they
>> are always pasted together?
>
>For read/write48, the value type is u64.
The way I read David's comment is that instead of calling the macro with read,
48, just combine that in a single argument: read48. I don't have a preference
about that and can respin eventually.
--
Florian
