RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

[David Laight]

> >>> +#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(>reg_mutex);
> >>> \
> >>> + ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val); 
> >>> \
> >>> + mutex_unlock(>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.

Indeed, factoring in the type is harder because reads want 'u64 *' not 'u64'.
While that could be factored, it would take more source lines and make
things very obfuscated.

David

RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

[Florian Fainelli]

On September 19, 2017 7:19:35 AM PDT, Vivien Didelot 
 wrote:
>Hi David,
>
>David Laight  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(>reg_mutex);
>>> \
>>> +   ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val); 
>>> \
>>> +   mutex_unlock(>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

RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

[Vivien Didelot]

Hi David,

David Laight  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(>reg_mutex);
>> \
>> +ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val); 
>> \
>> +mutex_unlock(>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.


Thanks,

Vivien

RE: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

[David Laight]

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(>reg_mutex);
> \
> + ret = dev->ops->type##op_size(dev, page, reg, val); 
> \
> + mutex_unlock(>reg_mutex);  
> \
> + 
> \
> + return ret; 
> \
>  }

Why separate the 'type' and 'op_size' arguments since they
are always pasted together?

David

Re: [PATCH net-next 05/12] net: dsa: b53: Use a macro to define I/O operations

[Vivien Didelot]

Hi Florian,

Florian Fainelli  writes:

> 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.).
>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli 

Reviewed-by: Vivien Didelot