Hi Geert, Thanks your reply! > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] spi: Add support for Renesas CSI > > Hi Fabrizio, > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 12:35 AM Fabrizio Castro > <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] spi: Add support for Renesas CSI > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 6:52 PM Fabrizio Castro > > > <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > +#define CSI_CKS_MAX 0x3FFF > > > > > > > > > > If it's limited by number of bits, i would explicitly use that > > > information > > > > > as > > > > > (BIT(14) - 1). > > > > > > > > That value represents the register setting for the maximum clock > > > divider. > > > > The maximum divider and corresponding register setting are > plainly > > > stated > > > > in the HW User Manual, therefore I would like to use either > (plain) > > > value > > > > to make it easier for the reader. > > > > > > > > I think perhaps the below makes this clearer: > > > > #define CSI_CKS_MAX_DIV_RATIO 32766 > > > > > > Hmm... To me it's a bit confusing now. Shouldn't it be 32767? > > > > 32766 is the correct value. > > > > Clock "csiclk" gets divided by 2 * CSI_CLKSEL_CKS in order to > generate the > > serial clock (output from master), with CSI_CLKSEL_CKS ranging from > 0x1 (that > > means "csiclk" is divided by 2) to 0x3FFF ("csiclk" is divided by > 32766). > > > > > > > > > #define CSI_CKS_MAX (CSI_CKS_MAX_DIV_RATIO >> 1) > > > > > > Whatever you choose it would be better to add a comment to explain > > > this. Because the above is more clear to me with BIT(14)-1 if the > > > register field is 14-bit long. > > > With this value(s) I'm lost. Definitely needs a comment. > > > > To cater for a wider audience (and not just for those who have read > the > > HW manual), I think perhaps the below would probably be the best > compromise: > > > > /* > > * Clock "csiclk" gets divided by 2 * CSI_CLKSEL_CKS in order to > generate the > > * serial clock (output from master), with CSI_CLKSEL_CKS ranging > from 0x1 (that > > * means "csiclk" is divided by 2) to 0x3FFF ("csiclk" is divided by > 32766). > > */ > > #define CSI_CKS_MAX (BIT(14)-1) > > Or GENMASK(13, 0) Yeah. > > As we have > > #define CSI_CLKSEL_CKS GENMASK(14, 1) > > and bit 0 must of the CLKSEL register must always be zero, the actual > divider is incidentally FIELD_GET(GENMASK(14, 0), clksel). > No idea if that can be useful to simplify the code, though ;-) Thanks for pointing this out. Will have a look, but no promises ;-) > > > > > static inline unsigned int x_trg(unsigned int words) > > > > { > > > > return fls(words) - 1; > > > > } > > > > > > OK, but I think you can use it just inplace, no need to have such > as a > > > standalone function. > > > > The above is actually equivalent to ilog2() > > > > > > > > > static inline unsigned int x_trg_words(unsigned int words) > > > > { > > > > return 1 << x_trg(words); > > > > } > > > > > > Besides a better form of BIT(...) this looks to me like NIH > > > roundup_pow_of_two(). > > > > rounddown_pow_of_two(). > > > > I have tested the driver with s/x_trg/ilog2 and > > s/x_trg_words/roundup_pow_of_two and it looks like I am losing tiny > bit of > > performance (probably down to the use of ternary operators in both > macros) > > but I think it's okay, let's not reinvent the wheel and let's keep > it more > > readable, I'll switch to using the above macros. > > You mean this is not lost in the noise of the big loop in > rzv2m_csi_pio_transfer(), which is even waiting on an event? > I find that a bit surprising... Those calculations get done when no TX/RX is in progress, and they are executed for every burst (as they are used to decide how many bytes in the FIFOs to use for the current burst), therefore they add a delay to the whole thing. It's only a tiny drop, about 0.4% . Cheers, Fab > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- > geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a > hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something > like that. > -- Linus Torvalds