Dear David Laight,
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:45:30 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Thomas Petazzoni
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:16:51 +0100, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> >
> > > +#define GEM_ISR1 0x0400
> > > +#define GEM_ISR2 0x0404
> > > +#define GEM_ISR3 0x0408
> > > +#define GEM_ISR4 0x040c
> > > +#define GEM_ISR5 0x0410
> > > +#define GEM_ISR6 0x0414
> > > +#define GEM_ISR7 0x0418
> >
> > What about doing instead:
> >
> > #define GEM_ISR(q) ((q) == 0 ? MACB_ISR : 0x400 +
> > (q) << 2)
> >
> > And ditto for all other registers, which will save a lot of boring repeated
> > code.
>
> It will probably add a lot of object code and, depending on how often
> the registers are accesses, might have performance impact.
>
> Having:
> #define GEM_ISR(n) (0x400 + (n) << 4)
> will save source code.
Except that this won't work for n == 0, because for n == 0, the
register offset is not 0x400.
And in fact, my code was also wrong, it should be:
((q) == 0 ? MACB_ISR : 0x400 + ((q)-1) << 2))
Since q=1 is at 0x400.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
