On 07/15/2014 11:07 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:46:32AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 07/15/2014 10:26 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
>>>>>>> +static void m_can_read_fifo(const struct net_device *dev, struct can_frame *cf,
>>>>>>> + u32 rxfs)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct m_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
>>>>>>> + u32 flags, fgi;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* calculate the fifo get index for where to read data */
>>>>>>> + fgi = (rxfs & RXFS_FGI_MASK) >> RXFS_FGI_OFF;
>>>>>>> + flags = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, 0x0);
>>>>>> ^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you introduce an enum for the offsets, please adjust the signature
>>>>>> of m_can_fifo_read() accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder enum may not be suitable.
>>>>> The Rx Buffer and FIFO Element is as follows:
>>>>> 31 24 23 16 15 8 7 0
>>>>> R0 ESI XTD RTR ID[28:0]
>>>>
>>>> M_CAN_FIFO_ID
>>>>
>>>>> R1 ANMF FIDX[6:0] res EDL BRS DLC[3:0] RXTS[15:0]
>>>>
>>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DLC
>>>>
>>>>> R2 DB3[7:0] DB2[7:0] DB1[7:0] DB0[7:0]
>>>>> R3 DB7[7:0] DB6[7:0] DB5[7:0] DB4[7:0]
>>>>
>>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA0
>>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA1
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean as follows?
>>> enum m_can_fifo {
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_ID = 0,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DLC,
>> = 0x4,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA0,
>> = 0x8,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA1,
>> = 0xc,
>>> };
>>>
>>> static inline u32 m_can_fifo_read(const struct m_can_priv *priv,
>>> u32 fgi, enum m_can_fifo fifo)
>>> {
>>> return readl(priv->mram_base + priv->mcfg[MRAM_RXF0].off +
>>> fgi * RXF0_ELEMENT_SIZE + fifo * 0x4);
>>> }
>>
>> without the * 0x4
>>
>>> id = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_ID);
>>>
>>> The problem is when adding long frames support, it becomes:
>>> enum m_can_fifo {
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_ID = 0,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DLC,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA0,
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA1,
>>> ....
>>> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA15,
>>> };
>>
>> #define M_CAN_FIFO_DATA(n)
>> (enum m_can_fifo)(M_CAN_FIFO_DATA_0 + (n) << 2)
>>
>
> This is a bit strange using and we may still have to define other M_CAN_FIFO_DATAx
> to avoid the enum value exceeds the defined range.
> enum m_can_fifo {
> M_CAN_FIFO_ID = 0,
> M_CAN_FIFO_DLC = 0x4,
> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA0 = 0x8,
> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA1 = 0xc,
> ....
> M_CAN_FIFO_DATA15 = 0xc,
> };
>
> However, actually we will not use them at all after introducing M_CAN_FIFO_DATA(n).
> If that, why we still need define them in enum?
>
> Comparing to this way, why not simply just do as follows:
> #define M_CAN_FIFO_ID 0x0
> #define M_CAN_FIFO_DLC 0x4
> #define M_CAN_FIFO_DATA(n) (0x8 + (n) << 2)
>
> What do you think?
Looks good.
>
>>> But it's useless because we may not use enum to read fifo data anymore.
>>> It's not suitable to read fifo one by one:
>>> m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_DATA0);
>>> m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_DATA1);
>>> ..
>>> m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_DATA15);
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead, we may read data according to real dlc value within a for loop like:
>>> #define M_CAN_FIFO(n) (n * 0x4)
>>> id = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO(0));
>>> dlc = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO(1));
>>> for (i = 0; dlc > 0; dlc -= 0x4, i++) {
>>> ....
>>> data[i] = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO(i + 2));
>>> }
>>
>> id = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_ID);
>> dlc = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_DLC);
>> for (i = 0; i <= dlc; i++)
>> data[i] = m_can_fifo_read(priv, fgi, M_CAN_FIFO_DATA(i));
>
> Does it work?
> The dlc is in bytes while m_can_fifo_read is read in words.
Doh! probably not :) But should work with something like this:
int len = DIV_ROUND_UP(dlc, 4);
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
