[PATCH 2/3] msm: iommu: Generalize platform data for multiple targets

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:53 -0800, David Brown wrote:

On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:03 -0800, David Brown wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Steve Muckle wrote:

quoted

quoted

If they were used in more than one place, we could justify the
definition, but in this case, the definition just obscures the code
slightly.

Someone debugging it will look at the constant.  In fact, in general,
the only person looking at this structure will want to know the value in
the table.  Indirecting it through a pointer only serves to hide it from
the person who wants to know the value.

Like I said in my example, people looking at the code won't always be
debugging.

quoted

A good example might be if all these constants are enumerated in a
header file, but aren't all used. In that case it would be fairly easy
to add a new resource without even know what the constant is just by
following the pattern.

This I definitely want to avoid.  I have seen header files with hundreds
of thousands of register definitions, where only a few were used.

I think your thinking of stuff that's not properly grouped.

quoted

I think in general this series just makes this iommu code very much
8660/8960 only code, but what about the potential next iteration of SoC
that uses very similar code to this with all new constants. So this
doesn't seem forward thinking to me.

The table would have the different addresses in it.  My point is that
the resource table _is_ the definition of the addres.  Nothing is gained
by inventing yet another name and putting that somewhere else.

In my example I showed you there is something to be gained by doing
this. As you said already there isn't must lost in doing it this way.

Daniel

-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.