Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: samsung: Improve naming for common macro

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 10:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 14/09/2021 16:23, Sam Protsenko wrote:

quoted

Having "_USI" suffix in EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA_USI() macro is
confusing. Rename it to just EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA() and provide
USI registers availability for all Exynos variants instead.

Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 11 ++++-------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)>

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
index e2f49863e9c2..542b7e2b99dc 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c

@@ -2780,7 +2780,7 @@ static struct s3c24xx_serial_drv_data s5pv210_serial_drv_data = {
 #endif

 #if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS)
-#define EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA_USI(_has_usi)          \
+#define EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA(_has_usi)                      \
      .info = &(struct s3c24xx_uart_info) {                   \
              .name           = "Samsung Exynos UART",        \
              .type           = TYPE_S3C6400,                 \

@@ -2804,21 +2804,18 @@ static struct s3c24xx_serial_drv_data s5pv210_serial_drv_data = {
              .has_fracval    = 1,                            \
      }                                                       \

-#define EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA                                \
-     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA_USI(0)
-
 static struct s3c24xx_serial_drv_data exynos4210_serial_drv_data = {
-     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA,
+     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA(0),
      .fifosize = { 256, 64, 16, 16 },
 };

 static struct s3c24xx_serial_drv_data exynos5433_serial_drv_data = {
-     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA,
+     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA(0),
      .fifosize = { 64, 256, 16, 256 },
 };

 static struct s3c24xx_serial_drv_data exynos850_serial_drv_data = {
-     EXYNOS_COMMON_SERIAL_DRV_DATA_USI(1),

Makes sense, although I would prefer to have here true or false. More
obvious. Otherwise "1" looks like counter/number for some property.

The has_usi field in struct could be then also converted to bool.

No problem, will send v2 shortly.

Best regards,
Krzysztof