Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <01443a2f1d58a595ddff03fd14fd56f4c26171bf.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] powerpc/pseries/iommu: Create defines for
 operations in ibm,ddw-applicable
From:   Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
To:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Wed, 01 Jul 2020 10:28:03 -0300
In-Reply-To: <b0caaaa0-14c9-51de-bb92-5be8ccaa418d@ozlabs.ru>
References: <20200624062411.367796-1-leobras.c@gmail.com>
         <20200624062411.367796-2-leobras.c@gmail.com>
         <b0caaaa0-14c9-51de-bb92-5be8ccaa418d@ozlabs.ru>
Organization: IBM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 (3.34.4-1.fc31) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 18:16 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 
> On 24/06/2020 16:24, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Create defines to help handling ibm,ddw-applicable values, avoiding
> > confusion about the index of given operations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c | 40 +++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > index 6d47b4a3ce39..68d2aa9c71a8 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/iommu.c
> > @@ -39,6 +39,11 @@
> >  
> >  #include "pseries.h"
> >  
> > +#define DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN	0
> > +#define DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN	1
> > +#define DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN	2
> > +#define DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE	3
> 
> #define DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE  (DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN + 1)
> 
> thanks,

Thanks for the feedback!
About this (and patch #2), would it be better to use enum ?
enum {
	DDW_QUERY_PE_DMA_WIN,
	DDW_CREATE_PE_DMA_WIN,
	DDW_REMOVE_PE_DMA_WIN,

	DDW_APPLICABLE_SIZE
}
IMO, it looks better than all the defines before.

What do you think?

Best regards,