Hi Geert, > -----Original Message----- > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 1:23 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/13] pinctrl: renesas: pinctrl-rzg2l: Add function pointers for > locking/unlocking the PFC register > > Hi Biju, > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:12 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 6:59 PM > > > Subject: [PATCH v2 06/13] pinctrl: renesas: pinctrl-rzg2l: Add > > > function pointers for locking/unlocking the PFC register > > > > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > On the RZ/G2L SoC, the PFCWE bit controls writing to PFC registers. > > > However, on the RZ/V2H(P) SoC, the PFCWE (REGWE_A on RZ/V2H) bit > > > controls writing to both PFC and PMC registers. Additionally, BIT(7) > > > B0WI is undocumented for the PWPR register on RZ/V2H(P) SoC. To > > > accommodate these differences across SoC variants, introduce the > > > set_pfc_mode() and > > > pm_set_pfc() function pointers. > > > > > > Note, in rzg2l_pinctrl_set_pfc_mode() the pwpr_pfc_unlock() call is > > > now called before PMC read/write and pwpr_pfc_lock() call is now > > > called after PMC read/write this is to keep changes minimal for RZ/V2H(P). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > RFC->v2 > > > - Introduced function pointer for (un)lock > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c > > > @@ -2688,6 +2699,8 @@ static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a07g043_data = { > > > .variable_pin_cfg = r9a07g043f_variable_pin_cfg, > > > .n_variable_pin_cfg = ARRAY_SIZE(r9a07g043f_variable_pin_cfg), > > > #endif > > > + .pwpr_pfc_unlock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_unlock, > > > + .pwpr_pfc_lock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_lock, > > > }; > > > > > > static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a07g044_data = { @@ -2699,6 > > > +2712,8 @@ static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a07g044_data = { > > > .n_dedicated_pins = ARRAY_SIZE(rzg2l_dedicated_pins.common) + > > > ARRAY_SIZE(rzg2l_dedicated_pins.rzg2l_pins), > > > .hwcfg = &rzg2l_hwcfg, > > > + .pwpr_pfc_unlock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_unlock, > > > + .pwpr_pfc_lock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_lock, > > > }; > > > > > > static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a08g045_data = { @@ -2709,6 > > > +2724,8 @@ static struct rzg2l_pinctrl_data r9a08g045_data = { > > > .n_port_pins = ARRAY_SIZE(r9a08g045_gpio_configs) * RZG2L_PINS_PER_PORT, > > > .n_dedicated_pins = ARRAY_SIZE(rzg3s_dedicated_pins), > > > .hwcfg = &rzg3s_hwcfg, > > > + .pwpr_pfc_unlock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_unlock, > > > + .pwpr_pfc_lock = &rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_lock, > > > > Some memory can be saved by avoiding duplication of data by using a > > single pointer for structure containing function pointers?? > > > > struct rzg2l_pinctrl_fns { > > void (*pwpr_pfc_unlock)(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl); > > void (*pwpr_pfc_lock)(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl); } > > So that would replace 3 (4 after adding RZ/V2H support) x 2 pointers in rzg2l_pinctrl_data > structures by 3 (4) pointers in rzg2l_pinctrl_data structures + 1 (2) x 2 pointers in > rzg2l_pinctrl_fns structures, and code size would increase due to extra pointer dereferences before > each call. > Am I missing something? Current case 3 * 2 pointers = 6 pointers Suggestion 3 * 1 pointer + 1 * 2 pointer = 5 pointers As you said, code size would increase due to extra pointer dereferences before each call. > > Merging rzg2l_pwpr_pfc_{,un}lock() into a single function (taking a "bool lock" flag) might be a > better solution to reduce rzg2l_pinctrl_data size. I agree. Cheers, Biju