Re: [PATCH v6 3/9] pinctrl: actions: Add Actions S900 pinctrl driver

[Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Andy,

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:16:49AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:46 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
> <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Add pinctrl driver for Actions Semi S900 SoC. The driver supports
> > pinctrl, pinmux and pinconf functionalities through a range of registers
> > common to both gpio driver and pinctrl driver.
> >
> > Pinmux functionality is available only for the pin groups while the
> > pinconf functionality is available for both pin groups and individual
> > pins.
> 
> > +static void owl_update_bits(void __iomem *base, u32 mask, u32 val)
> > +{
> > +       u32 reg_val;
> > +
> > +       reg_val = readl_relaxed(base);
> > +
> > +       reg_val &= ~mask;
> > +       reg_val |= val;
> 
> Usual pattern here is
> 
> reg_val = (reg_val & ~mask) | (val & mask);
> 
> This will allow to avoid possible overflow.
> 

Ack.

> > +
> > +       writel_relaxed(reg_val, base);
> > +}
> 
> > +       tmp = readl_relaxed(pctrl->base + reg);
> > +       mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +       arg = (tmp >> bit) & mask;
> 
> This looks like a candidate for a helper function. You have at least
> one more same code.
> 
> Something like
> 
> ..._read_field(reg, mask, shift)
> 
>

Okay. Will add owl_read_field helper function.
 
> > +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +               mask = mask << bit;
> > +
> > +               owl_update_bits(pctrl->base + reg, mask, (arg << bit));
> 
> Similar here,
> 
> ..._write_field(regm mask, shift, arg)
> 

Will add owl_write_field helper function.

> > +       tmp = readl_relaxed(pctrl->base + reg);
> > +       mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +       arg = (tmp >> bit) & mask;
> 
> > +               mask = (1 << width) - 1;
> > +               mask = mask << bit;
> > +
> > +               owl_update_bits(pctrl->base + reg, mask, (arg << bit));
> 
> > +static const struct pinconf_ops owl_pinconf_ops = {
> > +       .is_generic = true,
> > +       .pin_config_get = owl_pin_config_get,
> > +       .pin_config_set = owl_pin_config_set,
> > +       .pin_config_group_get = owl_group_config_get,
> > +       .pin_config_group_set = owl_group_config_set
> 
> It's still good idea to leave comma here...
>

I'm confused. What is the criteria for removing/keeping comma for last member
of struct? I followed your gpio driver suggestion.

Thanks,
Mani

> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct pinctrl_desc owl_pinctrl_desc = {
> > +       .pctlops = &owl_pinctrl_ops,
> > +       .pmxops = &owl_pinmux_ops,
> > +       .confops = &owl_pinconf_ops,
> > +       .owner = THIS_MODULE
> 
> ...and here, and in all similar places.
> 
> > +};
> > +
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html