Hi Geert/Vincent, > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 02 July 2025 12:19 > Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: rcar_canfd: Drop unused macros > > On 02/07/2025 at 19:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Biju, > > > > On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 at 11:46, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 > >>> at 17:04, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Drop unused macros from the rcar_canfd.c. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Closes: > >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ff93ff9-f578-4be2-bdc6-5b09eab64fe6@wa > >>>> nad > >>>> oo.fr/ > >>>> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>> #define RCANFD_RFPTR_RFDLC GENMASK(31, 28) > >>> > >>>> @@ -298,16 +256,10 @@ > >>>> #define RCANFD_GSTS (0x008c) > >>>> /* RSCFDnCFDGERFL / RSCFDnGERFL */ > >>>> #define RCANFD_GERFL (0x0090) > >>>> -/* RSCFDnCFDGTSC / RSCFDnGTSC */ > >>>> -#define RCANFD_GTSC (0x0094) > >>> > >>> Note that removed register offsets will become anonymous gaps when > >>> the register offsets are replaced by C structs, cfr. commit > >>> ab2aa5453bb83d05 > >>> ("can: rcar_canfd: Describe channel-specific FD registers using C struct"). > >> > >> OK. But removing unused reg offset is not an issue at the moment, I guess?? > > > > No, it is not an issue at the moment, as they are unused. Re-adding > > register members to a C struct later is just more tedious, as you have > > remove gaps or adjust their sizes (lol, mind the gap ;-). > > > > IIRC Vincent's biggest gripe is the use of function-like macros, not > > the definition of unused register offsets and bits? > > Correct. > > My comment really came from the fact that I did not understand why you were only removing > RCANFD_GAFLCFG_GETRNC() while keeping the other unused macros in: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/7ff93ff9-f578-4be2-bdc6-5b09eab64fe6@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > To be honnest, I would still rather prefer to see those unused macros removed, but it is something > that I am totally fine to leave to your judgement. > > Keeping the unused macro is totally negotiable if you prefer to do so :) > > My no-go is indeed on the proliferation of function-like macros. Thanks, I will filter out the unused macros as per the discussion. Cheers, Biju
