On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 10:01 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 13:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Jia Hongtao wrote: > >>> + msi->feature |= MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> /* > >>> * Remember the phandle, so that we can match with any PCI nodes > >>> * that have an "fsl,msi" property. > >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h > >>> index 8225f86..7389e8e 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h > >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_msi.h > >>> @@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ > >>> #define FSL_PIC_IP_IPIC 0x00000002 > >>> #define FSL_PIC_IP_VMPIC 0x00000003 > >>> > >>> +#define MSI_HW_ERRATA_ENDIAN 0x00000010 > >>> + > >> > >> Why does this need to be in the header, why not just have it in the .c only > > > > Didn't you ask this last time around? :-) > > > > This flag is part of the same numberspace as FSL_PIC_IP_xxx and thus > > should be defined in the same place. > > I probably did, if its part of the FSL_PIC_IP_xxx namespace, than lets remove > blank line between things to make that a bit more clear
It's not part of the FSL_PIC_IP_MASK subnumberspace though, just the overall msi->features numberspace. It would be nice if these symbols could have some sort of prefix in common, though. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
