On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 1:36 PM Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] spi: rzv2m-csi: Switch to using > > {read,write}s{b,w} > > On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 3:04 AM Fabrizio Castro > > <fabrizio.castro.jz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > According to the hardware documentation[1], the access size for both > > the > > CSI_OFIFO and CSI_IFIFO registers is 32 bits, so you must use writel() > > resp. readl(). So please check with the hardware people first. > > > > [1] RZ/V2M User's Manual Hardware, Rev. 1.30. > > You are right, access is 32 bits (and although this patch works fine, > we should avoid accessing those regs any other way). Now I remember > why I decided to go for the bespoke loops in the first place, writesl > and readsl provide the right register access, but the wrong pointer > arithmetic for this use case. > For this patch I ended up selecting writesw/writesb/readsw/readsb to > get the right pointer arithmetic, but the register access is not as > per manual. > > I can either fallback to using the bespoke loops (I can still > remove the unnecessary u8* and u16* casting ;-) ), or I can add > new APIs for this sort of access to io.h (e.g. writesbl, writeswl, > readsbl, readswl, in order to get the pointer arithmetic right for > the type of array handled, while keeping memory access as expected). > > What are your thoughts on that? I think that you need to use readsl() / writesl() on the custom buffer with something like *_sparse() / *_condence() APIs added (perhaps locally to this driver) as they may be reused by others in the future. Having all flavours of read*()/write*() does not scale in my opinion. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko