Hi Andy,
Thanks for the review.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 06:53:45PM +0000, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 8:38 PM Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Do not limitate to the 3 (100KHz, 400KHz, 1MHz) bus frequency but
> > instead allows any frequency (if it matches timing requirements).
> > Depending on the requested frequency, use the spec data from either
> > Standard, Fast or Fast Plus mode.
> >
> > Hardcoding of min/max bus frequencies is removed and is instead computed.
> >
> > The driver do not use anymore speed identifier but instead handle
> > directly the frequency and figure out the spec data (necessary
> > for the computation of the timing register) based on the frequency.
>
> ...
>
> > +static struct stm32f7_i2c_spec *get_specs(u32 rate)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_specs); i++)
> > + if (rate <= i2c_specs[i].rate)
> > + return &i2c_specs[i];
> > +
>
> > + /* NOT REACHED */
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> WARN_ONCE() ?
The comment should actually be removed. get_specs return value is
properly checked in stm32f7_i2c_compute_timing and an error message
is displayed in case of an error.
>
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > - if ((tscl_l < i2c_specs[setup->speed].l_min) ||
> > + if ((tscl_l < specs->l_min) ||
>
> > (i2cclk >=
> > ((tscl_l - af_delay_min - dnf_delay) / 4))) {
>
> Perhaps squash above two to one line at the same time?
I agree that this is not very pretty to read now but that would lead to
a line exceeding 80 characters. To fix that it'd be better to rework the code
but in such case that should be done at a separate time to keep this commit
as small / simpler to understand as possible. So I'd prefer leave this code
for the time being.
>
> ...
>
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_specs) - 1; i >= 0; i--)
>
>
> Perhaps
>
> int i = ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_specs);
>
> while(i--)
>
> ?
I propose the following code to make it a bit easier to read/understand:
static u32 get_lower_rate(u32 rate)
{
int i = ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_specs);
while (i--)
if (i2c_specs[i].rate < rate)
break;
return i2c_specs[i].rate;
}
If you agree with that I'll push a v2.
>
> > + if (i2c_specs[i].rate < rate)
> > + return i2c_specs[i].rate;
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
