On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:49:08PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:24:57PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > > > > + for (nc = 0, offset = 0; nc < 4; nc++, offset += 4) > > > > + wbuf[nc] = ipc_data_readl(scu, offset); > > > > + memcpy(data, wbuf, count); > > > > > > So do we actually need to read more than > > > DIV_ROUND_UP(min(count, 16U), sizeof(u32))? Because that's the approach > > > used in intel_scu_ipc_dev_command_with_size() which you referred to. > > > > I'm not sure I follow. We do IO for whole (16-bytes) buffer, but return only > > asked _bytes_ to the user. > > So always reading 16 bytes is not part of the old workaround? Because it > has a "lets read enough" feel. Ah, now I got it! Yes, we may reduce the reads to just needed ones. The idea is that we always have to perform 32-bit reads independently on the amount of data we want. > > > > } > > > > mutex_unlock(&ipclock); > > > > return err; > > > > > > FYI (unrelated to this patch), there seems to be some open-coded > > > FIELD_PREP()s in pwr_reg_rdwr(), some of which is common code between > > > those if branches too. > > > > This code is quite old and full of tricks that has to be tested. So, yes > > while it's possible to convert, I would like to do it in a small (baby) > > steps. This series is already quite intrusive from this perspective :-) > > Yeah, no pressure, I just noted down what I saw. :-) Thanks, I will keep this. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
