On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:56 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 16:50, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 5:25 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 15:39, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:35 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 at 14:56, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 8:43 PM Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > > > > > Why all these ugly % 32 against constants?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the JH7100_RST_ values goes higher than 31. There is a
> > > > > BIT_MASK macro, but that does % BITS_PER_LONG and this is a 64bit
> > > > > machine.
> > > >
> > > > And? It's exactly what you have to use!
> > >
> > > So you want me to use an unsigned long array or DECLARE_BITMAP and
> > > juggle two different index and bit offsets?
> >
> > What are the offsets of those status registers?
> > AFAICS they are sequential 4 32-bit registers.
>
> That's right, but we're on a 64bit machine, so DECLARE_BITMAP will
> give us an unsigned long array that doesn't match that.
I didn't get it, sorry.
You will have a bitmap array which you will split to 32-bit values.
What you will probably need is to move xgpio_get_value32() and void
xgpio_set_value32() to the one of bitmap related headers (look for
bitmap_get_value8() and friends).
> > So bitmap is exactly what is suitable here, you are right!
> > See gpio-xilinx and gpio-pca953x on how to use bitmaps in the GPIO drivers.
>
> None of them has a pre-initialized const DECLARE_BITMAP, so they don't
> have to deal with the 4 vs. 2 commas problem.
I believe it's well possible to refactor this to look much better with
bitmaps (as it represents the hardware very well).
> > > Also is there a macro for handling that we'd then need 4 commas on
> > > 32bit COMPILE_TEST and 2 commas on 64bit?
> > > If you have some other way in mind you'll have to be a lot more explicit again.
> > >
> > > The point of the jh7100_reset_asserted array is that it exactly
> > > mirrors the values of the status registers when the lines are
> > > asserted. Maybe writing it like this would be more explicit:
> > >
> > > static const u32 jh7100_reset_asserted[4] = {
> > > /* STATUS0 register */
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_U74 % 32) |
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_VP6_DRESET % 32) |
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_VP6_BRESET % 32),
> > > /* STATUS1 register */
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_DRESET % 32) |
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_HIFI4_BRESET % 32),
> > > /* STATUS2 register */
> > > BIT(JH7100_RST_E24 % 32),
> > > /* STATUS3 register */
> > > 0,
> > > };
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
