Hi Sean,
Mostly looks good, have few minor comments.
On 13 April 2017 at 12:35, <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> +static bool mtk_rng_wait_ready(struct hwrng *rng, bool wait)
> +{
> + struct mtk_rng *priv = to_mtk_rng(rng);
> + int ready;
> +
> + ready = readl(priv->base + RNG_CTRL) & RNG_READY;
> + if (!ready && wait)
> + readl_poll_timeout_atomic(priv->base + RNG_CTRL, ready,
> + ready & RNG_READY, USEC_POLL,
> + TIMEOUT_POLL);
> + return !!ready;
> +}
Use readl_poll_timeout_atomic's return value or -EIO instead of
!!ready. This will simplify mtk_rng_read.
> +static int mtk_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max, bool wait)
> +{
> + struct mtk_rng *priv = to_mtk_rng(rng);
> + int retval = 0;
> +
> + while (max >= sizeof(u32)) {
> + if (!mtk_rng_wait_ready(rng, wait))
> + break;
> +
> + *(u32 *)buf = readl(priv->base + RNG_DATA);
> + retval += sizeof(u32);
> + buf += sizeof(u32);
> + max -= sizeof(u32);
> + }
> +
> + if (unlikely(wait && max))
> + dev_warn(priv->dev, "timeout might be not properly set\n");
Is this really necessary? Better to choose proper timeout than
providing this warning message. In rare cases if the timeout could
occur due to some reason (may be a hardware fault) print appropriate
warning message.
> + return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;
> +}
Set retavl to mtk_rng_wait_ready and return retval.
Regards,
Prasanna
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
