Re: [PATCH 10/20] clocksource/drivers/vf-pit: Encapsulate the macros

[Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@oss.nxp.com>]

On 7/5/2025 7:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Pass the base address to the macro, so we can use the macro with
> multiple instances of the timer because we deal with different base
> address. At the same time, change writes to the register to the
> existing corresponding functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clocksource/timer-vf-pit.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-vf-pit.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-vf-pit.c
> index 066d0d2600f4..9c5e06506c26 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-vf-pit.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-vf-pit.c
> @@ -16,18 +16,21 @@
>  #define PITMCR		0x00
>  #define PIT0_OFFSET	0x100
>  #define PIT_CH(n)       (PIT0_OFFSET + 0x10 * (n))
> -#define PITLDVAL	0x00
> +
>  #define PITCVAL		0x04
> -#define PITTCTRL	0x08
> -#define PITTFLG		0x0c

The registers PITLDVAL, PITCVAL, PITTCTRL, and PITTFLG refer to individual PIT channels rather than global PIT registers. Shouldn't this distinction be reflected in their naming? I would suggest prefixing them with PIT_CH_ to improve clarity and indicate their per-channel scope.

-- 
Regards,
Ghennadi