Hi Jean,
On 2/8/22 08:45, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Terry,
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 12:41:24 -0600, Terry Bowman wrote:
>> Move duplicated region request and release code into a function. Move is
>> in preparation for following MMIO changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-piix4.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-piix4.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-piix4.c
>> index 3ff68967034e..5a98970ac60a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-piix4.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-piix4.c
>> @@ -165,6 +165,24 @@ struct i2c_piix4_adapdata {
>> u8 port; /* Port number, shifted */
>> };
>>
>> +static int piix4_sb800_region_request(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + if (!request_muxed_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE,
>> + "sb800_piix4_smb")) {
>> + dev_err(dev,
>> + "SMBus base address index region 0x%x already in use.\n",
>> + SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX);
>> + return -EBUSY;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void piix4_sb800_region_release(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + release_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int piix4_setup(struct pci_dev *PIIX4_dev,
>> const struct pci_device_id *id)
>> {
>> @@ -270,6 +288,7 @@ static int piix4_setup_sb800(struct pci_dev *PIIX4_dev,
>> unsigned short piix4_smba;
>> u8 smba_en_lo, smba_en_hi, smb_en, smb_en_status, port_sel;
>> u8 i2ccfg, i2ccfg_offset = 0x10;
>> + int retval;
>>
>> /* SB800 and later SMBus does not support forcing address */
>> if (force || force_addr) {
>> @@ -291,20 +310,16 @@ static int piix4_setup_sb800(struct pci_dev *PIIX4_dev,
>> else
>> smb_en = (aux) ? 0x28 : 0x2c;
>>
>> - if (!request_muxed_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE,
>> - "sb800_piix4_smb")) {
>> - dev_err(&PIIX4_dev->dev,
>> - "SMB base address index region 0x%x already in use.\n",
>> - SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX);
>> - return -EBUSY;
>> - }
>> + retval = piix4_sb800_region_request(&PIIX4_dev->dev);
>> + if (retval)
>> + return retval;
>>
>> outb_p(smb_en, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX);
>> smba_en_lo = inb_p(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX + 1);
>> outb_p(smb_en + 1, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX);
>> smba_en_hi = inb_p(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX + 1);
>>
>> - release_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE);
>> + piix4_sb800_region_release(&PIIX4_dev->dev);
>>
>> if (!smb_en) {
>> smb_en_status = smba_en_lo & 0x10;
>> @@ -685,9 +700,9 @@ static s32 piix4_access_sb800(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr,
>> u8 port;
>> int retval;
>>
>> - if (!request_muxed_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE,
>> - "sb800_piix4_smb"))
>> - return -EBUSY;
>> + retval = piix4_sb800_region_request(&adap->dev);
>> + if (retval)
>> + return retval;
>>
>> /* Request the SMBUS semaphore, avoid conflicts with the IMC */
>> smbslvcnt = inb_p(SMBSLVCNT);
>> @@ -762,7 +777,7 @@ static s32 piix4_access_sb800(struct i2c_adapter *adap, u16 addr,
>> piix4_imc_wakeup();
>>
>> release:
>> - release_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, SB800_PIIX4_SMB_MAP_SIZE);
>> + piix4_sb800_region_release(&adap->dev);
>> return retval;
>> }
>>
>
> There's a third occurrence of request_muxed_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX,
> ...) / release_region(SB800_PIIX4_SMB_IDX, ...) in function
> piix4_setup_sb800. Any reason why you don't make use of the new helper
> functions there as well?
>
I didn't update the other occurrence because it was outside the codepath
for the device we are addressing. At the time I wanted to minimize changes
particularly for other devices.
> OK, I see that this part of the code is specific to the original (ATI)
> SB800, so it can't use MMIO, therefore you don't *have* to call the
> helper functions. But for consistency, wouldn't it still make sense to
> use them?
>
Yes, it would be more consistent if it used the helper function.
Regards,
Terry
