On 9/19/24 4:24 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
ufshcd_wait_for_register practically does just that - replace with
read_poll_timeout.
Signed-off-by: Avri Altman <avri.altman@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 22 ++++++----------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 8ea5a82503a9..e9d06fab5f45 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -739,25 +739,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ufshcd_delay_us);
* Return: -ETIMEDOUT on error, zero on success.
*/
static int ufshcd_wait_for_register(struct ufs_hba *hba, u32 reg, u32 mask,
- u32 val, unsigned long interval_us,
- unsigned long timeout_ms)
+ u32 val, unsigned long interval_us,
+ unsigned long timeout_ms)
{
- int err = 0;
- unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms);
-
- /* ignore bits that we don't intend to wait on */
- val = val & mask;
+ u32 v;
- while ((ufshcd_readl(hba, reg) & mask) != val) {
- usleep_range(interval_us, interval_us + 50);
- if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
- if ((ufshcd_readl(hba, reg) & mask) != val)
- err = -ETIMEDOUT;
- break;
- }
- }
+ val &= mask; /* ignore bits that we don't intend to wait on */
- return err;
+ return read_poll_timeout(ufshcd_readl, v, (v & mask) == val,
+ interval_us, timeout_ms * 1000, false, hba, reg);
}
/**
Has it been considered to remove the ufshcd_wait_for_register() function
and to use read_poll_timeout() directly in the
ufshcd_wait_for_register() callers? The above patch makes
ufshcd_wait_for_register() so short that it's probably better to remove
this function entirely.
Thanks,
Bart.
