From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Zhang Lily-R58066 <r58066@freescale.com>,
linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] ARM i.MX51: Add IPU device support
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:26:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pqt3c89f.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201012151649.45199.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:49:45 +0100")
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
Hi,
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> +#define imx51_add_ipuv3(pdata) \
>> + imx_add_ipuv3(&imx51_ipuv3_data, pdata)
>
> This looks like a pointless abstraction, it does not make
> the code smaller or easier to read. I know it's sometimes
> tempting to use macros, but in most cases, you should try
> not to.
>
it's how things have been handled atm in the imx code. I don't have
any preference on this at all but at least either we go on with it
or we get rid of all theses #defines. It's a matter of consistency.
The thing is that I would consider removing the imx*add* stuff to be
a cleanup and should be done in a different patch, not in a patchset
adding IPU support for imx51.
Anyway, let's wait for Sascha's point of view, he knows the imx stuff
far better than me.
Arnaud
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] ARM i.MX51: Add IPU device support
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:26:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pqt3c89f.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201012151649.45199.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:49:45 +0100")
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
Hi,
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> +#define imx51_add_ipuv3(pdata) \
>> + imx_add_ipuv3(&imx51_ipuv3_data, pdata)
>
> This looks like a pointless abstraction, it does not make
> the code smaller or easier to read. I know it's sometimes
> tempting to use macros, but in most cases, you should try
> not to.
>
it's how things have been handled atm in the imx code. I don't have
any preference on this at all but at least either we go on with it
or we get rid of all theses #defines. It's a matter of consistency.
The thing is that I would consider removing the imx*add* stuff to be
a cleanup and should be done in a different patch, not in a patchset
adding IPU support for imx51.
Anyway, let's wait for Sascha's point of view, he knows the imx stuff
far better than me.
Arnaud
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org (Arnaud Patard (Rtp))
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 6/9] ARM i.MX51: Add IPU device support
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:26:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pqt3c89f.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201012151649.45199.arnd@arndb.de> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:49:45 +0100")
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
Hi,
> On Thursday 09 December 2010, Sascha Hauer wrote:
>> +#define imx51_add_ipuv3(pdata) \
>> + imx_add_ipuv3(&imx51_ipuv3_data, pdata)
>
> This looks like a pointless abstraction, it does not make
> the code smaller or easier to read. I know it's sometimes
> tempting to use macros, but in most cases, you should try
> not to.
>
it's how things have been handled atm in the imx code. I don't have
any preference on this at all but at least either we go on with it
or we get rid of all theses #defines. It's a matter of consistency.
The thing is that I would consider removing the imx*add* stuff to be
a cleanup and should be done in a different patch, not in a patchset
adding IPU support for imx51.
Anyway, let's wait for Sascha's point of view, he knows the imx stuff
far better than me.
Arnaud
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-15 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-09 13:47 [PATCH RFC] i.MX51 Framebuffer support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 1/9] ARM i.MX51: Add ipu clock support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-15 15:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 15:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 15:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-15 16:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-15 16:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-15 16:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 17:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-15 17:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-15 17:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 2/9] ARM i.MX51: rename IPU irqs Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 14:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-12-09 14:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-12-09 14:34 `
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 3/9] Add a mfd IPUv3 driver Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-12 5:21 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-12 5:21 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 11:23 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:23 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:23 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 4:05 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 4:05 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 4:05 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 8:40 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 8:40 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 8:40 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 13:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 13:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 13:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 4/9] fb: export fb mode db table Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-01-06 7:26 ` Paul Mundt
2011-01-06 7:26 ` Paul Mundt
2011-01-06 7:26 ` Paul Mundt
2011-01-06 10:04 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-01-06 10:04 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-01-06 10:04 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 5/9] Add i.MX5 framebuffer driver Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-12 6:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-12 6:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-12 6:13 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 7:23 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-12-13 7:23 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-12-13 7:23 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-12-13 11:35 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 11:35 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 11:35 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 11:38 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:38 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:38 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 6:40 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 6:40 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 6:40 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 8:45 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 8:45 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 8:45 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 13:23 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 13:23 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 13:23 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-15 11:17 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-15 11:17 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-15 11:17 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 6/9] ARM i.MX51: Add IPU device support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-15 15:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 15:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 15:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:26 ` Arnaud Patard [this message]
2010-12-15 16:26 ` Arnaud Patard (Rtp)
2010-12-15 16:26 ` Arnaud Patard
2010-12-15 16:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-15 16:29 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 7/9] ARM i.MX5: Allow to increase max zone order Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 8/9] ARM i.MX5: increase dma consistent size for IPU support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` [PATCH 9/9] ARM i.MX51 babbage: Add framebuffer support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-09 13:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-12 1:37 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-12 1:37 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-12 1:37 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-13 11:43 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:43 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-13 11:43 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-14 6:47 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 6:47 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-14 6:47 ` Liu Ying
2010-12-15 9:35 ` [PATCH RFC] i.MX51 Framebuffer support Peter Horton
2010-12-15 11:24 ` Sascha Hauer
2010-12-20 10:48 [PATCH v2] " Sascha Hauer
2010-12-20 10:48 ` [PATCH 6/9] ARM i.MX51: Add IPU device support Sascha Hauer
2010-12-20 10:48 ` Sascha Hauer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87pqt3c89f.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org \
--to=arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=r58066@freescale.com \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.