This just standardizes the use of MIN() and MAX() macros, with the very
traditional semantics. The goal is to use these for C constant
expressions and for top-level / static initializers, and so be able to
simplify the min()/max() macros.
These macro names were used by various kernel code - they are very
traditional, after all - and all such users have been fixed up, with a
few different approaches:
- trivial duplicated macro definitions have been removed
Note that 'trivial' here means that it's obviously kernel code that
already included all the major kernel headers, and thus gets the new
generic MIN/MAX macros automatically.
- non-trivial duplicated macro definitions are guarded with #ifndef
This is the "yes, they define their own versions, but no, the include
situation is not entirely obvious, and maybe they don't get the
generic version automatically" case.
- strange use case #1
A couple of drivers decided that the way they want to describe their
versioning is with
#define MAJ 1
#define MIN 2
#define DRV_VERSION __stringify(MAJ) "." __stringify(MIN)
which adds zero value and I just did my Alexander the Great
impersonation, and rewrote that pointless Gordian knot as
#define DRV_VERSION "1.2"
instead.
- strange use case #2
A couple of drivers thought that it's a good idea to have a random
'MIN' or 'MAX' define for a value or index into a table, rather than
the traditional macro that takes arguments.
These values were re-written as C enum's instead. The new
function-line macros only expand when followed by an open
parenthesis, and thus don't clash with enum use.
Happily, there weren't really all that many of these cases, and a lot of
users already had the pattern of using '#ifndef' guarding (or in one
case just using '#undef MIN') before defining their own private version
that does the same thing. I left such cases alone.
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Fix the following errors reported by checkpatch:
ERROR: return is not a function, parentheses are not required
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
ERROR: need consistent spacing around '-' (ctx:WxV)
Signed-off-by: Ran Sun <sunran001@208suo.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
The target is to provide a clear entry point(for power routines).
Also this can help to maintain a clear view about the frameworks
used on different ASICs. Hopefully all these can make power part
more friendly to play with.
Signed-off-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
