On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:57:10PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Sakari,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Separate CCS static data read-only register access in ccs-reg-access.c by
> > naming them differently.
>
> "naming the access functions differently"
>
> > The code in this file generally deals with reading and writing registers
> > where as static data (when it comes to ccs_static_read_only()) contains
> > the read-only register values but no hardware registers are accessed in
> > that case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs | 2 +-
> > drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c | 20 +++++++++----------
> > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs b/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> > index 01252ee6062b..3d3152b45821 100755
> > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ if (! defined $kernel) {
> >
> > print $H "#define CCS_FL_FLOAT_IREAL " . flag_str(\$flag, \$all_flags) . "\n";
> > print $H "#define CCS_FL_IREAL " . flag_str(\$flag, \$all_flags) . "\n";
> > -print $H "#define CCS_BUILD_BUG \
> > +print $H "#define CCS_BUILD_BUG \\
>
> This doesn't seem related.
Oops. This was meant to go to the previous patch. I'll address this in
v3...
>
> > BUILD_BUG_ON(~CCI_REG_PRIVATE_MASK & ($all_flags))\n"
> > if defined $kernel;
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> > index 25993445f4fe..652d705a2ef5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> > @@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ static int __ccs_read_addr(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -static int __ccs_read_data(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,
> > - u32 reg, u32 *val)
> > +static int __ccs_static_read_only(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,
>
> "static read only" sounds weird when interpreting "read" as a verb. And
> if "read" is not a verb, you're missing a verb :-) Maybe
> __ccs_read_state_data() would be a better name ? Same below.
Why state_data? I prefer to use terms used in the spec, not come up with
new ones.
There are also other blocks in static data beseides read-only register
values.
How about ccs_static_data_read_only_reg(), would that be more informative
in your opinion?
>
> > + u32 reg, u32 *val)
> > {
> > unsigned int width = ccs_reg_width(reg);
> > size_t i;
> > @@ -235,16 +235,16 @@ static int __ccs_read_data(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> >
> > -static int ccs_read_data(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val)
> > +static int ccs_static_read_only(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val)
> > {
> > - if (!__ccs_read_data(sensor->sdata.sensor_read_only_regs,
> > - sensor->sdata.num_sensor_read_only_regs,
> > - reg, val))
> > + if (!__ccs_static_read_only(sensor->sdata.sensor_read_only_regs,
> > + sensor->sdata.num_sensor_read_only_regs,
> > + reg, val))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - return __ccs_read_data(sensor->mdata.module_read_only_regs,
> > - sensor->mdata.num_module_read_only_regs,
> > - reg, val);
> > + return __ccs_static_read_only(sensor->mdata.module_read_only_regs,
> > + sensor->mdata.num_module_read_only_regs,
> > + reg, val);
> > }
> >
> > static int ccs_read_addr_raw(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
> > @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int ccs_read_addr_raw(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
> > int rval;
> >
> > if (data) {
> > - rval = ccs_read_data(sensor, reg, val);
> > + rval = ccs_static_read_only(sensor, reg, val);
> > if (!rval)
> > return 0;
> > }
>
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
