On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 14:18 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
Rehi.
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:21 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-04-13 at 10:04 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > This patch makes two changes, both of which should be no-ops:
> > >
> > > 1. Make read_tcs_reg() / read_tcs_cmd() symmetric to write_tcs_reg() /
> > > write_tcs_cmd().
> > >
> > > 2. Change the order of operations in the above functions to make it
> > > more obvious to me what the math is doing. Specifically first you
> > > want to find the right TCS, then the right register, and then
> > > multiply by the command ID if necessary.
> >
> > Though these operations are only used a couple times, perhaps
> > it'd be useful to have static inlines for the calcs.
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> > []
> > > @@ -67,28 +67,33 @@
> > > #define CMD_STATUS_ISSUED BIT(8)
> > > #define CMD_STATUS_COMPL BIT(16)
> >
> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > static inline void __iomem *
> > tcs_reg_addr(struct rsc_drv drv, int reg, int tcs_id)
> > {
> > return drv->tcs_base + RSC_DRV_TCS_OFFSET * tcs_id + reg;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void __iomem *
> > tcs_cmd_addr(struct rsc_drv drv, int reg, int tcs_id, int cmd_id)
> > {
> > return tcs_reg_addr(drv, reg, tcs_id) + RSC_DRV_CMD_OFFSET * cmd_id;
> > }
> >
> > > -static u32 read_tcs_reg(struct rsc_drv *drv, int reg, int tcs_id, int cmd_id)
> > > +static u32 read_tcs_cmd(struct rsc_drv *drv, int reg, int tcs_id, int cmd_id)
> > > {
> > > - return readl_relaxed(drv->tcs_base + reg + RSC_DRV_TCS_OFFSET * tcs_id +
> > > + return readl_relaxed(drv->tcs_base + RSC_DRV_TCS_OFFSET * tcs_id + reg +
> > > RSC_DRV_CMD_OFFSET * cmd_id);
> >
> > return readl_relaxed(tcs_cmd_addr(drv, reg, tcs_id, cmd_id));
> >
> > etc...
>
> I won't object if you really feel passionately about making that
> change but at this point it doesn't add tons of extra readability for
> me personally.
Just a suggestion.
> I was kinda hoping that Maulik and my series could
> land in the next few days since having 16 patches outstanding gets a
> bit unwieldy. I'd rather not send out another spin of my series at
> this point since it's just a bunch more churn in everyone's inboxes.
> Maybe after they land you can post that as a follow-up cleanup?
If I remember...
cheers, Joe
