On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:14:03 +0100
David Vrabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I really don't follow you objection to this. If one is maintaining
> the SDIO core then I would expect some familiarity with the spec and
> an understanding the FBRs are per-function but contained in the same
> CCCR/F0 register space.
>
If we can reduce that barrier, then I think we should. People can't be
expected to keep everything fresh in memory all the time. And we won't
have a team dedicated to hacking this all the time.
> Also, I would consider the start of the CCCR as the "base address".
>
In some sense, but there are also several identical FBR chunks on the
card. So by most definitions of a base address, the start of each chunk
would be it.
> > Would you be content with replacing "func->num * 0x100" with a
> > macro so that the code becomes something like:
> >
> > SDIO_FBR_BASE(func->num) + SDIO_FBR_STD_IF
>
> I think this is less readable than SDIO_FBR_STD_IF(func->num).
>
It's subjective. But the longer version is more understandable for
someone who doesn't have the details of the SDIO protocol fresh in his
mind.
Rgds
--
-- Pierre Ossman
Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org
PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org
rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org
-
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/
