Subject: [RFC 5/7] soc: qcom: Add Shared Memory Driver

From: [email-masked] (Bjorn Andersson)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:02:50 -0700

On Thu 02 Oct 15:38 PDT 2014, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> On 09/29/14 17:34, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > +
> > +#define GET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param) \
> > +	(channel->rx_info_word ? \
> > +		channel->rx_info_word->param : \
> > +		channel->rx_info->param)
> > +
> > +#define GET_TX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param) \
> > +	(channel->rx_info_word ? \
> > +		channel->tx_info_word->param : \
> > +		channel->tx_info->param)
> > +
> > +#define SET_RX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param, value) \
> > +	(channel->rx_info_word ? \
> > +		(channel->rx_info_word->param = value) : \
> > +		(channel->rx_info->param = value))
> > +
> > +#define SET_TX_CHANNEL_INFO(channel, param, value) \
> > +	(channel->rx_info_word ? \
> 
> Drive-by review: Should this be tx_info_word? Given that it works I
> wonder why not just have a flag indicating if we should use word aligned
> read/write vs. byte aligned.
> 

You're right, that should be tx - but from the way things both channels will
always be of the same type, so it will simply work.

I had a separate flag, but instead of having 4 members in the struct to
indicate if I was dealing with word aligned access I had 5. So I dropped it.

> > +		(channel->tx_info_word->param = value) : \
> > +		(channel->tx_info->param = value))
> > +
> 

Regards,
Bjorn