On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:41:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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.
I'm happy with that. Could I have your ack, so that I can queue it with the related SMMU patches, please? Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
