Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi Martin,

On 09/26/2017 01:01 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Alim,
> 
>> Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT()
>> macro?
> 
> I fail to see the point of UFS_BIT(). So yes.
> 
> Please make sure to CC: Subhash on ufs changes.
> 
Thanks for looking into this patch.
I have just posted https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/30/41 (a series of 3 
patches)
Please take a look.

Regards,
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi Martin,

On 09/26/2017 01:01 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Alim,
> 
>> Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT()
>> macro?
> 
> I fail to see the point of UFS_BIT(). So yes.
> 
> Please make sure to CC: Subhash on ufs changes.
> 
Thanks for looking into this patch.
I have just posted https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/30/41 (a series of 3 
patches)
Please take a look.

Regards,
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Martin K. Petersen]

Alim,

> Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT()
> macro?

I fail to see the point of UFS_BIT(). So yes.

Please make sure to CC: Subhash on ufs changes.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen  Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Martin K. Petersen]

Alim,

> Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT()
> macro?

I fail to see the point of UFS_BIT(). So yes.

Please make sure to CC: Subhash on ufs changes.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen  Oracle Linux Engineering

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi,

Ping!!!

Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT() macro?

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Alim Akhtar  wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
>>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
>>> with reset of the file.
>>
>> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:
>>
>> #define UFS_BIT(x)(1L << (x))
>>
>> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
>> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
>> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?
>>
> Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing
> UFS_BIT() macro.
>
> I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place.
>
> Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one
> to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to
> UFS_BIT.
>
> I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change
> UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which
> this patch is trying to change.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
> Thanks!
> Alim



-- 
Regards,
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi,

Ping!!!

Should I drop this patch and send another one which removes UFS_BIT() macro?

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Alim Akhtar  wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
>>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
>>> with reset of the file.
>>
>> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
>> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:
>>
>> #define UFS_BIT(x)(1L << (x))
>>
>> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
>> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
>> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?
>>
> Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing
> UFS_BIT() macro.
>
> I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place.
>
> Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one
> to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to
> UFS_BIT.
>
> I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change
> UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which
> this patch is trying to change.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bart.
>>
> Thanks!
> Alim



-- 
Regards,
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi Bart,
Thanks for your review.

On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
>> with reset of the file.
> 
> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:
> 
> #define UFS_BIT(x)(1L << (x))
> 
> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?
> 
Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing 
UFS_BIT() macro.

I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place.

Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one 
to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to 
UFS_BIT.

I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change 
UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which 
this patch is trying to change.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
Thanks!
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

Hi Bart,
Thanks for your review.

On 08/28/2017 09:15 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
>> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
>> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
>> with reset of the file.
> 
> This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:
> 
> #define UFS_BIT(x)(1L << (x))
> 
> Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
> code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
> remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?
> 
Well, the intension of this patch is to make use of already existing 
UFS_BIT() macro.

I am not aware of the history why this macro was created at first place.

Well, it does improve code readability, for me at least, no need for one 
to do a calculation to see which bit it is, as we pass _bit_ number to 
UFS_BIT.

I am totally okay, if you or other reviewers suggests me to change 
UFS_BIT to actual bit position, something like the original case, which 
this patch is trying to change.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
Thanks!
Alim

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Bart Van Assche]

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
> with reset of the file.

This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:

#define UFS_BIT(x)  (1L << (x))

Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: [PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Bart Van Assche]

On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 17:49 +0530, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
> places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
> with reset of the file.

This is the definition of the UFS_BIT() macro I found in
drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h:

#define UFS_BIT(x)  (1L << (x))

Using this macro makes code longer instead of shorter and does not improve
code readability. Is this macro really useful? Wouldn't it be better to
remove the UFS_BIT() macro instead of introducing more uses of it?

Thanks,

Bart.

[PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
with reset of the file.

Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar 
---
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
index f60145d..588094a 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
@@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ enum {
 /* UECDL - Host UIC Error Code Data Link Layer 3Ch */
 #define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR  UFS_BIT(31)
 #define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_CODE_MASK0x7FFF
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_PA_INIT  0x2000
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_NAC_RECEIVED 0x0001
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_TCx_REPLAY_TIMEOUT 0x0002
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_PA_INIT  UFS_BIT(13)
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_NAC_RECEIVED UFS_BIT(1)
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_TCx_REPLAY_TIMEOUT UFS_BIT(2)
 
 /* UECN - Host UIC Error Code Network Layer 40h */
 #define UIC_NETWORK_LAYER_ERRORUFS_BIT(31)
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH] scsi: ufs: Make use of UFS_BIT macro wherever possible

[Alim Akhtar]

This entire file uses UFS_BIT macro for bits definition, expect for few
places. This patch convert those defines to use UFS_BIT macro to be aligned
with reset of the file.

Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar 
---
 drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
index f60145d..588094a 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
+++ b/drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshci.h
@@ -186,9 +186,9 @@ enum {
 /* UECDL - Host UIC Error Code Data Link Layer 3Ch */
 #define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR  UFS_BIT(31)
 #define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_CODE_MASK0x7FFF
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_PA_INIT  0x2000
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_NAC_RECEIVED 0x0001
-#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_TCx_REPLAY_TIMEOUT 0x0002
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_PA_INIT  UFS_BIT(13)
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_NAC_RECEIVED UFS_BIT(1)
+#define UIC_DATA_LINK_LAYER_ERROR_TCx_REPLAY_TIMEOUT UFS_BIT(2)
 
 /* UECN - Host UIC Error Code Network Layer 40h */
 #define UIC_NETWORK_LAYER_ERRORUFS_BIT(31)
-- 
2.7.4