He needs to pass the pnp_dev to later be able to replace the:
for (idx = 0; idx < PNP_MAX_PORT; idx++)
loops with:
for (idx = 0; pnp_port(dev, idx); idx++)
in a later patch when he introduces dynamic resource tables -- pnp-acpi can
(and does) now sometimes require more resources than the current pnp limits
allow but simply upping the limits uncoditionally wastes too much space in
the resource tables. He therefore aims to krealloc() the arrays as required.
As he explained in his 0/3, his pnp_port() would look like:
#define pnp_port(dev,bar) ((dev)->res.allocated_ports > (bar) \
? (&(dev)->res.port_resource[(bar)]) : NULL)
If the above replacement was the only use for the macros, he could as well do:
for (idx = 0; idx < dev->res.allocated_ports; idx++)
but given that he'll need to get at the resource more generally, the simple
pnp_port(), pnp_irq(), pnp_dma() and pnp_mem() names sound best. It would
ofcourse be possible to call them something like pnp_port_addr() as well but
given that he only needs to get rid of pnp_irq() and pnp_dma() to have these
better names available, I'd say go for it.
pnp_{irq,dma}_no(), or pnp_{irq,dma}_start() as he originally proposed and
which has consistency both with the existing pnp_{port,mem}_start() and the
struct resource name as its plus should be fine and he then frees up the
better names for the new use which should make for better readable code at
the end of things.
My vote's with pnp_irq_start(). As said, consistent both with the port and
mem variants and the struct resource usage and name.
Rene.
-
