On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 08:36:51AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >But that said, I don't care for the RMW_BITS() very much as a long
> >term thing. If we just used pointers instead of passing the offset
> >into the bg_ptr->conf->sensors[] array then everything would be a
> >lot cleaner.
> >
> >In other words, instead of this:
> >
> >static u32 omap_bandgap_read_temp(struct omap_bandgap *bg_ptr, int id)
> >
> >We would have:
> >
> >static u32 omap_bandgap_read_temp(struct omap_bandgap *bg_ptr,
> > struct temp_sensor_registers *tsr)
>
> I see. That will require a change in the whole driver though. If you
> see, the driver as of today uses the former approach, not only for
> read_temp or rmw_bits.
Yep.
>
> >
> >If you have the pointer then it's easy write RMW_BITS() as a
> >function.
> >
> >static void rmw_bits(struct omap_bandgap *bg_ptr, u32 reg, u32 mask, u32 val)
> >{
> > u32 r;
> >
> > r = omap_bandgap_readl(bg_ptr, reg);
> > r &= ~mask;
> > r |= val << __ffs(mask);
> > omap_bandgap_writel(bg_ptr, r, reg);
> >}
> >
> >It's called like:
> >
> > rmw_bits(bg_ptr, tsr->bgap_mask_ctrl, tsr->mask_freeze_mask, 1);
>
> This is nice, but it will require fetching tsr from .conf before
> every call o rmw_bits. And for that you need the sensor index.
>
No. I'm suggesting that you re-write the driver to pass the tsr
pointer directly instead of the index.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
