Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] mtd: rawnand: denali: switch over to ->exec_op() from legacy hooks

[Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Miquel,


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 PM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Masahiro,
>
> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Tue, 12 Feb
> 2019 16:12:56 +0900:
>
> > Implement ->exec_op(), and remove the deprecated hooks.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Thanks for working on this, I like it very much!
>
> >
> > Changes in v2: None
> >
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c | 234 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> >  1 file changed, 126 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c
> > index a2fe2ff..bd7df25 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/denali.c
>
> [...]
>
> > +
> > +static int denali_exec_instr(struct nand_chip *chip,
> > +                          const struct nand_op_instr *instr)
> > +{
> > +     struct denali_nand_info *denali = to_denali(chip);
> > +     bool width16 = chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16;
> > +
> > +     switch (instr->type) {
> > +     case NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR:
> > +             denali_exec_out8(denali, DENALI_MAP11_CMD,
> > +                              &instr->ctx.cmd.opcode, 1);
> > +             return 0;
> > +     case NAND_OP_ADDR_INSTR:
> > +             denali_exec_out8(denali, DENALI_MAP11_ADDR,
> > +                              instr->ctx.addr.addrs,
> > +                              instr->ctx.addr.naddrs);
> > +             return 0;
> > +     case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
> > +             (!instr->ctx.data.force_8bit && width16 ?
> > +              denali_exec_in16 :
> > +              denali_exec_in8)(denali, DENALI_MAP11_DATA,
> > +                               instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
> > +                               instr->ctx.data.len);
>
> I think this is abusing the ternary operator, can you please find
> another way for writing this? Otherwise it is not easily readable... If
> it is really too complicated within 80 chars, then never mind.

Yes, I am abusing it,
but the intention is quite clear.


I could stupidly repeat the same function arguments like follows,
but I did not want to do it.

case NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR:
        if (!instr->ctx.data.force_8bit && width16)
                denali_exec_in16(denali, DENALI_MAP11_DATA,
                                 instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
                                 instr->ctx.data.len);
        else
                denali_exec_in8(denali, DENALI_MAP11_DATA,
                                instr->ctx.data.buf.in,
                                instr->ctx.data.len);





> > +             return 0;
> > +     case NAND_OP_DATA_OUT_INSTR:
> > +             (!instr->ctx.data.force_8bit && width16 ?
> > +              denali_exec_out16 :
> > +              denali_exec_out8)(denali, DENALI_MAP11_DATA,
> > +                                instr->ctx.data.buf.out,
> > +                                instr->ctx.data.len);
> > +             return 0;
> > +     case NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR:
> > +             return denali_exec_waitrdy(denali);
> > +     default:
> > +             WARN_ONCE(1, "unsupported NAND instruction type: %d\n",
> > +                       instr->type);
> > +
> > +             return -EINVAL;
> > +     }
> > +}
> > +
>
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/