From: "Loc Ho" Subject: Long Macro's Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:35:21 -0700 Message-ID: <0CA0A16855646F4FA96D25A158E299D6043EDE7A@SDCEXCHANGE01.ad.amcc.com> References: <20080220202543.3209.47410.stgit@jazz.citi.umich.edu> <20080324131204.GA7324@gondor.apana.org.au> <0CA0A16855646F4FA96D25A158E299D6043EDC6C@SDCEXCHANGE01.ad.amcc.com> <20080325030723.GA12830@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080325122656.GA15675@2ka.mipt.ru> <0CA0A16855646F4FA96D25A158E299D6043EDDC3@SDCEXCHANGE01.ad.amcc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: To: "Herbert Xu" Return-path: Received: from sdcmail01-ext1.amcc.com ([198.137.200.72]:24088 "EHLO sdcmail01.amcc.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752208AbYCYUfY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:35:24 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message In-Reply-To: <0CA0A16855646F4FA96D25A158E299D6043EDDC3@SDCEXCHANGE01.ad.amcc.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Herbert, I have a crypto offload driver that has macro's defined as below. They are autogenerated by hardware tool. Some of them are quite long - even longer than below example. Would they be a problem in accepting into the Linux driver tree. They are formed by concat register name with bit field definition defined by the hardware tool. Sample: ======= #define IPE_TKN_CTRL_ADDR 0x100 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_LSB 0 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_MSB 1 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_WIDTH 2 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_MASK 0x3 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_SHIFT_MASK 0x0 #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_READ(data) \ (F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_MASK & (unsigned int)(data)) #define F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_WRITE(data) \ (F_IPE_TKN_CTRL_STAT_ACTIVE_TOKENS_MASK & (unsigned int)(data)) -Loc