Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 22:01, Francois Romieu wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> [...]
> > #define SMC_WRITE_EEPROM_CMD(cmd, addr)
> > \
> > do { \
> > - while (SMC_GET_E2P_CMD() & MAC_CSR_CMD_CSR_BUSY_); \
> > - SMC_SET_MAC_CMD(MAC_CSR_CMD_R_NOT_W_ | a ); \
> > - while (SMC_GET_MAC_CMD() & MAC_CSR_CMD_CSR_BUSY_); \
> > + while (SMC_GET_E2P_CMD() & E2P_CMD_EPC_BUSY_) \
> > + cpu_relax(); \
> > + SMC_SET_E2P_DATA((v) & 0xFF); \
> > + SMC_SET_E2P_CMD(E2P_CMD_EPC_BUSY_ | \
> > + (cmd) << 28 | ((addr) & 0xFF)); \
> > + while (SMC_GET_E2P_CMD() & E2P_CMD_EPC_BUSY_) \
> > + cpu_relax(); \
> > } while (0)
>
> Macro abuse. It should be a function.
Yes but I got smc911x.h and smc91x.h as a basis. In the smc911x.c there are
macros
which is longer than it, e.g. SMC_GET_MII. In the same way, smc91x.h contains
even
more longer like SMC_PUSH_DATA. But, of course, it doesnt mean they are correct.
It's two different things. Just want to explain it.
Do you think if I convert them(smc911x.h) to static inline, would that be
correct?
--
Bora SAHIN
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
