[PATCH 30/54] ARM: msm: irq_data conversion.
Lennert Buytenhek
buytenh at wantstofly.org
Tue Nov 30 19:10:35 EST 2010
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 02:57:55PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > -static void msm_irq_ack(unsigned int irq)
> > +static void msm_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
> > {
> > - void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, irq);
> > - irq = 1 << (irq & 31);
> > - writel(irq, reg);
> > + void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
> > + writel(1 << (d->irq & 31), reg);
> > }
>
> I haven't really looked over this patch set as a whole, but I was
> looking at this section and I noticed that your doing a small clean up
> here. If your doing this kind of conversion it's much nicer if you do
> any cleanups prior to submitting the conversion. Everyone might agree on
> the conversion that your doing, but when you interleave cleanups then
> people may be agreeing to things that are hidden inside the conversion..
Since:
irq = 1 << (irq & 31);
modifies an argument to the function, I couldn't just change this
into:
d->irq = 1 << (d->irq & 31);
as that would clobber d->irq permanently.
So my options were to do either:
void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
writel(1 << (d->irq & 31), reg);
or:
void __iomem *reg = VIC_INT_TO_REG_ADDR(VIC_INT_CLEAR0, d->irq);
unsigned int irq = d->irq;
irq = 1 << (irq & 31);
writel(irq, reg);
If you prefer the latter, I'd be happy to change the patch to the
latter.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list