On Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 10:29:56 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 21:52 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > +static struct sunxi_timer *timer_base = > > > + &((struct sunxi_timer_reg *)SUNXI_TIMER_BASE)->timer[TIMER_NUM]; > > > + > > > +/* macro to read the 32 bit timer: since it decrements, we invert read > > > value */ +#define READ_TIMER() (~readl(&timer_base->val)) > > > > This macro has to go, just use ~readl() in place. But still, why do you > > use that negation in "~readl()" anyway ? > > The comment right above it explains why: the timer counts backwards and > inverting it accounts for that. > > This is subtle enough that I don't think using ~readl() in place in the > 3 callers would be an improvement.
Please do it, we don't want any implementers down the line using this "READ_TIMER()" call and getting hit by "timer_base undefined" . That macro hides the dependency on this symbol, while if you expanded it in-place, the dependency would be explicit. I really do want to see that macro gone, sorry. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot