On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 12:28 PM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 11:53:17 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 10:55 AM Jonathan Cameron > > <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2023 6:04 PM > > > > > On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 22:32:27 +0800 > > > > > Kim Seer Paller <kimseer.paller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * Convert transmit buffer to big-endian format and reverse transmit > > > > > > + * buffer to align with the LSB-first input on SDI port. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + st->spi_tx_buffer = > > > > > cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(FIELD_PREP(MAX14001_ADDR_MASK, > > > > > > + reg_addr))); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->spi, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers)); > > > > > > + if (ret) > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * Align received data from the receive buffer, reversing and reordering > > > > > > + * it to match the expected MSB-first format. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + *data = (__force u16)(be16_to_cpu(bitrev16(st->spi_rx_buffer))) & > > > > > > + > > > > > MAX14001_DATA_MASK; > > > > > > + > > > > > These sequences still confuse me a lot because I'd expect the values in tx > > > > > to have the opposite operations applied to those for rx and that's not the > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > Let's take a le system. > > > > > tx = cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(x)) > > > > > = cpu_to_be16((__bitrev8(x & 0xff) << 8) | __bitrev8(x >> 8)); > > > > > = __bitrev8(x & 0xff) | (__bitrev8(x >> 8) << 8) > > > > > or swap all the bits in each byte, but don't swap the bytes. > > > > > > > > > > rx = cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(x)) > > > > > = be16_to_cpu(((__bitrev8(x & 0xff) << 8) | __bitrev8(x >> 8)_ > > > > > = __bitrev8(x & 0xff) | __bitrev(x >> 8) > > > > > > > > > > also swap all the bits in each byte, but don't swap the bytes. > > > > > > > > > > So it is the reverse because the bytes swaps unwind themselves somewhat. > > > > > For a be system cpu_to_be16 etc are noop. > > > > > tx = (__bitrev8(x & 0xff) << 8) | __bitrev8(x >> 8) > > > > > rx = (__bitrev8(x & 0xff) << 8) | __bitrev8(x >> 8) > > > > > > > > > > So in this case swap all 16 bits. > > > > > > > > > > Now, given I'd expected them to be reversed for the tx vs rx case. > > > > > E.g. > > > > > tx = cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(x)) > > > > > As above. > > > > > For rx, le host > > > > > rx = bitrev16(be16_to_cpu(x)) > > > > > = __bitrev8((x >> 8) & 0xff) << 8) | __bitrev8((((x & 0xff) << 8) >> 8) > > > > > same as above (if you swap the two terms I think. > > > > > > > > > > For be the be16_to_cpu is a noop again, so it's just bitrev16(x) as expected. > > > > > > > > > > Hence if I've understood this correctly you could reverse the terms so that > > > > > it was 'obvious' you were doing the opposite for the tx term vs the rx one > > > > > without making the slightest bit of difference.... > > > > > > > > > > hmm. Might be worth doing simply to avoid questions. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. I have tested the modifications based on your > > > > suggestions, taking the le system into account, and it appears that the code is > > > > functioning correctly. Before sending the new patch version, I would like to > > > > confirm if this aligns with your comments. > > > > > Yes. This looks good to me. > > > > I think the implementation is still incorrect. See below. > > > > > > static int max14001_read(void *context, unsigned int reg_addr, unsigned int *data) > > > > { > > > > struct max14001_state *st = context; > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > struct spi_transfer xfers[] = { > > > > { > > > > .tx_buf = &st->spi_tx_buffer, > > > > .len = sizeof(st->spi_tx_buffer), > > > > .cs_change = 1, > > > > }, { > > > > .rx_buf = &st->spi_rx_buffer, > > > > .len = sizeof(st->spi_rx_buffer), > > > > }, > > > > }; > > > > > > st->spi_tx_buffer = cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(FIELD_PREP(MAX14001_ADDR_MASK, reg_addr))); > > > > Here we got bits in CPU order, reversed them and converted to BE16. > > > > > > ret = spi_sync_transfer(st->spi, xfers, ARRAY_SIZE(xfers)); > > > > if (ret) > > > > return ret; > > > > > > *data = cpu_to_be16(bitrev16(st->spi_rx_buffer)); > > > > Here we take __be16 response, reverse them and convert to BE16?! > > This is weird. You should have be16_to_cpu() somewhere, not the opposite. > Good point - though functionally they end up the same (and the bitrev > is making mess of type markings anyway). It is more logical > to ensure the direction is reversed as you suggest. Also a question why we don't do that in reversed order. Logically it sounds like bitrev16(be16_to_cpu()) should be. Will it give the wrong results? All in all this algo should be described in the comment in the code (if not yet). > > > > return 0; > > > > } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko