Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:12:32 +0200
> roel <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> 
>>>  #define ata_id_cdb_intr(id)	(((id)[0] & 0x60) == 0x20)
>>> +#define ata_id_has_hipm(id)	\
>>> +	( (((id)[76] != 0x0000) && ((id)[76] != 0xffff)) && \
>>> +	  ((id)[76] & (1 << 9)) )
>> 		^
>> 		|
>> are you sure this
>> should be 76?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> we can also change the first statement a bit:
>> 	(!(((id)[76] == 0x0000) || ((id)[76] == 0xffff)) && \
>>
>>
>>> +#define ata_id_has_dipm(id)	\
>>> +	( (((id)[76] != 0x0000) && ((id)[76] != 0xffff)) && \
>> and:
>> 	(!(((id)[76] == 0x0000) || ((id)[76] == 0xffff)) && \
> 
> I feel this is equivalent functionality and not as readable.

Poke around for Alan Cox's cleanup of this area of linux/ata.h.

It converts several macros to inline functions (encouraged), and also 
illustrates a nice, clean way of testing an ID word's validity. 
[obviously the final implementation varies, depending on that ID word's 
history]

Alan or Andrew, got a copy somewhere?  My feeble search skills don't 
seem to turn it up at the moment, even though I had a copy in my hands 
quite recently.

	Jeff


-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/