Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Staging: octeon-usb: Change coding style of CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 marco.

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 06:41:52PM +0300, Georgios Tsotsos wrote:
> Fixing coding style for CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32 was confusing. Also
> encapsulates into parentheses timeout_usec.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Georgios Tsotsos <tsotsos@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
> index cff5e790b196..c8e0ebf1434f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon-usb/octeon-hcd.c
> @@ -378,27 +378,29 @@ struct octeon_hcd {
>  };
>  
>  /* This macro spins on a register waiting for it to reach a condition. */
> -#define CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32(address, _union, cond, timeout_usec)	    \
> -	({int result;							    \
> -	do {								    \
> -		u64 done = cvmx_get_cycle() + (u64)timeout_usec *	    \
> -			   octeon_get_clock_rate() / 1000000;		    \
> -		union _union c;						    \
> -									    \
> -		while (1) {						    \
> -			c.u32 = cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address);	    \
> -									    \
> -			if (cond) {					    \
> -				result = 0;				    \
> -				break;					    \
> -			} else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) {		    \
> -				result = -1;				    \
> -				break;					    \
> -			} else						    \
> -				__delay(100);				    \
> -		}							    \
> -	} while (0);							    \
> -	result; })
> +#define CVMX_WAIT_FOR_FIELD32(address, _union, cond, timeout_usec)	\
> +({									\
> +	int result;							\
> +	do {								\
> +		u64 done = cvmx_get_cycle() + (u64)(timeout_usec) *	\
> +			   octeon_get_clock_rate() / 1000000;		\
> +		union _union c;						\
> +									\
> +		while (1) {						\
> +			c.u32 = cvmx_usb_read_csr32(usb, address);	\
> +									\
> +			if (cond) {					\
> +				result = 0;				\
> +				break;					\
> +			} else if (cvmx_get_cycle() > done) {		\
> +				result = -1;				\
> +				break;					\
> +			} else						\
> +				__delay(100);				\
> +		}							\
> +	} while (0);							\
> +	result;								\
> +})

It's still a mess, why not just make this a function call instead?

thanks,

greg k-h