On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 02:08:49PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I mean __ccs_read_static_data(). I'm working on a patch related
to V4L2 subdev state at the moment :-)
> 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?
ccs_static_data_read_ro_reg() would work for me. I interpret
ccs_static_data_read_only_reg() as "read just the register and nothing
else".
> > > + 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,
Laurent Pinchart
