Hi,
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static void sds_wr(void __iomem *csr_base, u32 indirect_cmd_reg,
>>>>>> + u32 indirect_data_reg, u32 addr, u32 data)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + u32 val;
>>>>>> + u32 cmd;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + cmd = CFG_IND_WR_CMD_MASK | CFG_IND_CMD_DONE_MASK;
>>>>>> + cmd = CFG_IND_ADDR_SET(cmd, addr);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks hacky. If 'CFG_IND_WR_CMD_MASK | CFG_IND_CMD_DONE_MASK'
>>>>> should
>>>>> be set then it should be part of the second argument. From the macro
>>>>> 'CFG_IND_ADDR_SET' the first argument should be more like the current
>>>>> value
>>>>> present in the register right? I feel the macro (CFG_IND_ADDR_SET) is
>>>>> not
>>>>> used in the way it is intended to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The macro XXX_SET is intended to update an field within the register.
>>>> The update field is returned. The first assignment lines are setting
>>>> another field. Those two lines can be written as:
>>>>
>>>> cmd = 0;
>>>> cmd |= CFG_IND_WR_CMD_MASK; ==> Set the CMD bit
>>>> cmd |= CFG_IND_CMD_DONE_MASK; ==> Set the DONE bit
>>>> cmd = CFG_IND_ADDR_SET(cmd, addr); ===> Set the field ADDR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> #define CFG_IND_ADDR_SET(dst, src) \
>>> (((dst) & ~0x003ffff0) | (((u32)(src)<<4) & 0x003ffff0))
>>>
>>> From this macro the first argument should be the present value in that
>>> register. Here you reset the address bits and write the new address bits.
>>
>>
>> Yes.. This is correct. I am clearing x number of bit and then set new
>> value.
>>
>>> IMO the first argument should be the value in 'csr_base +
>>> indirect_cmd_reg'.
>>> So it resets the address bits in 'csr_base + indirect_cmd_reg' and write
>>> down the new address bits.
>>
>>
>> Yes.. The above code does just that. In addition, I am also setting
>> the bits CFG_IND_WR_CMD_MASK and CFG_IND_CMD_DONE_MASK with the two
>> previous statement. Think of the code flow as follow:
>>
>> val = readl(some void * address); /* read the register */
>
>
> Where are you reading the register in your code (before CFG_IND_ADDR_SET)?
I am not reading the register as I will be completely setting them.
This example is to show how these macro intended to be used.
>>
>> val = XXXX_SET(val, 0x1); /* set bit 0 - assuming XXXX set
>> bit 0 only */
>
> If you want to set other bits (other than address) don't use
> CFG_IND_ADDR_SET macro. That looks hacky to me.
I am not. This example is only to show how it can be used if there are
multiple fields to be set. I need to set three fields - two 1 bit
fields and one 19 bit fields. For the one bit field, I just use the
mask. For the 19 bit field, I am using the CFG_IND_ADDR_SET macro. Any
issue before I post an update version?
>
>> val = YYYY_SET(val, 0x1); /* set bit 1 - assuming YYYY set
>> bit 1 only */
>> val = ZZZZ_SET(val, 0x5); /* set upper 16 bit of the
>> register to 0x5 - assuming ZZZZ set field of the upper 16 bits */
>>
>> Instead writing the above, I am replacing the above 4 lines with these
>> two lines:
>>
>> cmd = CFG_IND_WR_CMD_MASK | CFG_IND_CMD_DONE_MASK;
>> cmd = CFG_IND_ADDR_SET(cmd, addr);
>>
>> Is there clear?
>>
-Loc
--
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
