Hi Andy,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:19 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:57 PM Brad Larson <brad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Add support for AMD Pensando Elba SoC which explicitly controls
> > byte-lane enables on writes. Add priv_write_l() which is
>
> enabling ?
Changed to enabling
> ...
>
> > + void (*priv_write_l)(struct sdhci_cdns_priv *priv, u32 val,
>
> priv_writel
Changed to priv_writel
>
> > + void __iomem *reg);
>
> And perhaps leave it on one line.
>
> I also would swap parameters, so address goes first followed by value.
Which is the reverse of writel() parameter ordering which is value,
address. Should I do this?
> ...
>
> > +static inline void sdhci_cdns_priv_writel(struct sdhci_cdns_priv *priv,
> > + u32 val, void __iomem *reg)
> > +{
>
> > + if (unlikely(priv->priv_write_l))
>
> First of all, why if (unlikely())-else instead of if (likely())-else?
>
> > + priv->priv_write_l(priv, val, reg);
> > + else
> > + writel(val, reg);
> > +}
It was existing code and never looked at it. This construct looks to
be widely used however this goes away with the two patch approach
below.
$ find . -name \*.c | xargs grep if | grep unlikely | wc
18640
> Instead of branching each time you do I/O, make sure that callback is
> always set and call it unconditionally. In this case you don't need to
> have this callback, but maybe just a wrapper on `writel()`. As a
> result you may split this to two patches in the first of which you
> simply introduce a callback and a writel() wrapper which is assigned
> unconditionally to all current chips. In the next you add a new chip
> support.
Next version will separate into two patches as described
> ...
>
> > + u32 m = (reg & 0x3);
> > + u32 msk = (0x3 << (m));
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->wrlock, flags);
> > + writel(msk << 3, priv->ctl_addr);
> > + writew(val, host->ioaddr + reg);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->wrlock, flags);
>
> Too many 3:s as magic. Is it GENMASK() or something else? Perhaps it
> needs a definition.
Definitely, changed this to be understandable by inspection.
GENMASK() for word and BIT() for byte makes this more clear. The 3's
came from bits [6:3] are the byte-lane enables in the control reg
where the lower two bits of the address specify the byte(s) to enable.
/* Elba control reg bits [6:3] are byte-lane enables */
#define ELBA_BYTE_ENABLE_MASK(x) ((x) << 3)
elba_priv_write_l(...):
writel(ELBA_BYTE_ENABLE_MASK(0xf), priv->ctl_addr);
writel(val, reg);
elba_write_w(...):
byte_enables = GENMASK(1, 0) << (reg & 0x3);
writel(ELBA_BYTE_ENABLE_MASK(byte_enables), priv->ctl_addr);
writew(val, host->ioaddr + reg);
> ...
>
> > + u32 m = (reg & 0x3);
> > + u32 msk = (0x1 << (m));
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->wrlock, flags);
> > + writel(msk << 3, priv->ctl_addr);
> > + writeb(val, host->ioaddr + reg);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->wrlock, flags);
>
> Ditto.
elba_write_b(...):
byte_enables = BIT(0) << (reg & 0x3);
writel(ELBA_BYTE_ENABLE_MASK(byte_enables), priv->ctl_addr);
writeb(val, host->ioaddr + reg);
> ...
>
> > + writel(0x78, priv->ctl_addr);
>
> Magic.
writel(ELBA_BYTE_ENABLE_MASK(0xf), priv->ctl_addr);
> ...
>
> > +static const struct sdhci_cdns_drv_data sdhci_cdns_drv_data = {
> > + .pltfm_data = {
> > + .ops = &sdhci_cdns_ops,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +
> > +
>
> One blank line is enough.
Removed extra blank line
> ...
>
> > + {
> > + .compatible = "amd,pensando-elba-sd4hc",
> > + .data = &sdhci_elba_drv_data
>
> Leave a comma here.
Added comma
Regards,
Brad
