From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:16:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [RFC] OMAP4: clock: shrink clock data utilizing preprocessor. In-Reply-To: <20110513130441.GH5323@atomide.com> (Tony Lindgren's message of "Fri, 13 May 2011 16:04:43 +0300") References: <1305247077-15927-1-git-send-email-vzapolskiy@gmail.com> <20110513113013.GP31483@atomide.com> <4DCD2260.4090806@ti.com> <20110513130441.GH5323@atomide.com> Message-ID: <87aaeq3fmt.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Tony Lindgren writes: > * Cousson, Benoit [110513 15:18]: >> >>>Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy >> >> >> >Unfortunately I don't have an automated tool, but that would be great >> >to have such a script. For this time I've checked the correctness of the >> >change comparing the preprocessed output. >> >> In fact these files are already generated automatically, as written >> in the header file. So changing the output format should >> straightforward. At least for OMAP4... OMAP2 and OMAP3 were done >> manually some time ago. > > Sounds like the important thing to consider here is how these macros > should be set up considering the upcoming generic clock framework > and device tree changes. > > So let's wait a few days for comments from Benoit and Paul on the > format for the macros so we don't need to redo them again later. > Of course there might be other things to consider too.. ... like readability. After seeing the patch (thanks Benoit), I think this is bad tradeoff between readability and lines-of-code. Personally, I don't think we should be trading readability for diffstat goodness. I have a strong dislike for these multi-line macros, but it's up to Paul/Benoit to decide how this should look. Kevin