On Monday 25 April 2016 16:28:01 Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We _could_ - indeed I started doing that, but then decided that the
> >>> obfuscation of horrible macro-templated functions wasn't worth saving a
> >>> couple of hundred bytes in some code that isn't exactly difficult to
> >>> maintain and has needed touching once in 4 years.
> >>>
> >>> If you did want to go down the macro route, I may as well also generate
> >>> both
> >>> lo-hi and hi-lo headers all from a single template, it'd be really
> >>> clever...
> >>> <alarm bells>
> >>
> >> I certainly wasn't suggesting any more than the obvious macroisation,
> >> but I'll leave it up to Arnd, as I think this falls on his lap.
> >
> > I'd prefer the open-coded variant as well.
>
> By that, do you mean sticking with the smmu_writeq() implementation in
> the driver and dropping this patch, or merging this patch as-is without
> further macro-magic?
>
Sorry, that was really ambiguous on my end. I meant leaving patch 4/7
as it is in the version you posted.
However, leaving the open-coded writel_relaxed() in the driver or just
using the non-relaxed hi_lo_readq() would be totally fine too.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
