From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755868AbbLDIiP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 03:38:15 -0500
Received: from kvm5.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.144]:32936 "EHLO
	kvm5.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755738AbbLDIiM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Dec 2015 03:38:12 -0500
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 19:38:03 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com>
cc: Ondrej Zary <linux@rainbow-software.org>,
        Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 76/71] ncr5380: Enable PDMA for DTC chips
In-Reply-To: <CAGRGNgU=6=XBGxpwe+Z+uU-Pq-L=aTyG2GukkWAqFVnJHTY3Og@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1512041857160.13680@nippy.intranet>
References: <20151118083455.331768508@telegraphics.com.au> <1449183781-2163-1-git-send-email-linux@rainbow-software.org> <CAGRGNgU=6=XBGxpwe+Z+uU-Pq-L=aTyG2GukkWAqFVnJHTY3Og@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, Julian Calaby wrote:

> > -               if (overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A) {
> > +               if (overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A ||
> > +                   overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_DTC3181E) {
> 
> These if statements are starting to get a bit long, would it make
> sense to replace them with a flag or equivalent?

To what end? Shorter lines? As in,

	if (board_is_ncr53c400a || board_is_dtc3181e) {
		/* ... */
	}

I suppose that could be an improvement if new flags would entirely replace 
the override.board struct member and the existing switch statement,

	switch (overrides[current_override].board) {
		/* ... */
	}

Or maybe you meant testing a new flag something like this,

	if (hostdata->ncr53c400_compatible) {
		/* ... */
	}

If your concern is the Don't Repeat Yourself rule, I'm not sure that new 
flag would get tested more than once (?) And it would still have to be 
assigned using an "objectionably" long expression, e.g.

	hostdata->ncr53c400_compatible =
		overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400 ||
		overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_NCR53C400A ||
		overrides[current_override].board == BOARD_DTC3181E;

Rather than add new flags, perhaps a 'switch' statement instead of an 'if' 
statement would be shorter (if the size of the expression is the problem).

--