Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic_arb

From: kgunda
Date: Thu Jun 01 2017 - 12:12:02 EST

Next message: Ben Hutchings: "[PATCH 3.16 095/212] x86/pci-calgary: Fix iommu_free() comparison of unsigned expression >= 0"
Previous message: Jonathan Corbet: "Re: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_attr_interfmode_store"
Next in thread: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic_arb"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Thanks Stephen for reviewing the patches. Responses inline.

Thanks,
Kiran

On 2017-05-31 06:16, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 05/30, Kiran Gunda wrote:

From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Usually *_dev best used for structures that embed a struct device in
them. spmi_pmic_arb_dev doesn't embed one. It is simply a driver data
structure. Use an appropriate name for it.

Also there are many places in the driver that left shift the bit to
generate a bit mask. Replace it with the BIT() macro.

That would be a different patch because the subject doesn't even
mention this.

Sure. Agree. Will split this in to different patch.

Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kiran Gunda <kgunda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 164 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------

Would also be nice if you ran scripts/objdiff on this so we can
be confident the code didn't change.

Sure. Will do that in the next patch.

1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
index df463d4..7f918ea 100644
--- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
+++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
@@ -58,10 +58,10 @@

/* Channel Status fields */
enum pmic_arb_chnl_status {
- PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DONE = (1 << 0),
- PMIC_ARB_STATUS_FAILURE = (1 << 1),
- PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DENIED = (1 << 2),
- PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DROPPED = (1 << 3),
+ PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DONE = BIT(0),
+ PMIC_ARB_STATUS_FAILURE = BIT(1),
+ PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DENIED = BIT(2),
+ PMIC_ARB_STATUS_DROPPED = BIT(3),
};

/* Command register fields */
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ enum pmic_arb_cmd_op_code {
struct pmic_arb_ver_ops;

/**
- * spmi_pmic_arb_dev - SPMI PMIC Arbiter object
+ * spmi_pmic_arb - SPMI PMIC Arbiter object
*
* @rd_base: on v1 "core", on v2 "observer" register base off DT.
* @wr_base: on v1 "core", on v2 "chnls" register base off DT.
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ enum pmic_arb_cmd_op_code {
* @ppid_to_chan in-memory copy of PPID -> channel (APID) mapping table.
* v2 only.
*/
-struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev {
+struct spmi_pmic_arb {
void __iomem *rd_base;
void __iomem *wr_base;
void __iomem *intr;
@@ -164,10 +164,10 @@ struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev {
* on v2 offset of SPMI_PIC_IRQ_CLEARn.
*/
struct pmic_arb_ver_ops {
- int (*mode)(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 sid, u16 addr,
+ int (*mode)(struct spmi_pmic_arb *dev, u8 sid, u16 addr,

But we leave dev here? I'm losing faith that this patch is
worthwhile.

Ok. As per your suggestion we will drop this renaming patch.

mode_t *mode);
/* spmi commands (read_cmd, write_cmd, cmd) functionality */
- int (*offset)(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 sid, u16 addr,
+ int (*offset)(struct spmi_pmic_arb *dev, u8 sid, u16 addr,
u32 *offset);
u32 (*fmt_cmd)(u8 opc, u8 sid, u16 addr, u8 bc);
int (*non_data_cmd)(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid);
@@ -178,16 +178,16 @@ struct pmic_arb_ver_ops {
u32 (*irq_clear)(u8 n);
};

-static inline void pmic_arb_base_write(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev,
+static inline void pmic_arb_base_write(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa,
u32 offset, u32 val)
{
- writel_relaxed(val, dev->wr_base + offset);
+ writel_relaxed(val, pa->wr_base + offset);

"pa" is a little confusing with things like physical address and
such. I would have gone for "arb", but the code is written
already, so why change it now?

Ok. As per your suggestion we will drop this renaming patch.

}

-static inline void pmic_arb_set_rd_cmd(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev,
+static inline void pmic_arb_set_rd_cmd(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa,
u32 offset, u32 val)
{
- writel_relaxed(val, dev->rd_base + offset);
+ writel_relaxed(val, pa->rd_base + offset);
}

/**
@@ -196,9 +196,10 @@ static inline void pmic_arb_set_rd_cmd(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev,
* @reg: register's address
* @buf: output parameter, length must be bc + 1
*/
-static void pa_read_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
+static void pa_read_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)

In fact, I would rename these pa_{read,write}_data() functions as
pmic_arb_{read,write}_data() to be consistent. These are the only
places "pa_" is used right now.

Sure. Agree. Will rename this to pmic_arb_{read,write}_data in the next patch.

{
- u32 data = __raw_readl(dev->rd_base + reg);
+ u32 data = __raw_readl(pa->rd_base + reg);
+
memcpy(buf, &data, (bc & 3) + 1);
}

@@ -209,23 +210,24 @@ static void pa_read_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
* @buf: buffer to write. length must be bc + 1.
*/
static void
-pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, const u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
+pa_write_data(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, const u8 *buf, u32 reg, u8 bc)
{
u32 data = 0;
+
memcpy(&data, buf, (bc & 3) + 1);
- __raw_writel(data, dev->wr_base + reg);
+ pmic_arb_base_write(pa, reg, data);

This is an unrelated change. Not sure what's going on with this
diff but we most likely want to keep the __raw_writel() here. See
how renames introduce bugs and why we don't value them?

Actually pmic_arb_base_write has the writel_relaxed inside it.
that's why we removed the __raw_writel to use the common function.
Anyways, we drop the renaming patch from this patch series.

}

@@ -270,22 +272,22 @@ static int pmic_arb_wait_for_done(struct spmi_controller *ctrl,
static int
pmic_arb_non_data_cmd_v1(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pmic_arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
unsigned long flags;
u32 cmd;
int rc;
u32 offset;

- rc = pmic_arb->ver_ops->offset(pmic_arb, sid, 0, &offset);
+ rc = pa->ver_ops->offset(pa, sid, 0, &offset);
if (rc)
return rc;

cmd = ((opc | 0x40) << 27) | ((sid & 0xf) << 20);

- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
- pmic_arb_base_write(pmic_arb, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
- rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pmic_arb->wr_base, sid, 0);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pa->lock, flags);
+ pmic_arb_base_write(pa, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
+ rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pa->wr_base, sid, 0);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);

return rc;

Yeah pmic_arb sounds fine too. Not sure why we changed anything
in this function.

Ok. We will drop this renaming patch.

}
@@ -299,7 +301,7 @@ static int pmic_arb_wait_for_done(struct spmi_controller *ctrl,
/* Non-data command */
static int pmic_arb_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pmic_arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);

dev_dbg(&ctrl->dev, "cmd op:0x%x sid:%d\n", opc, sid);

@@ -307,13 +309,13 @@ static int pmic_arb_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid)
if (opc < SPMI_CMD_RESET || opc > SPMI_CMD_WAKEUP)
return -EINVAL;

- return pmic_arb->ver_ops->non_data_cmd(ctrl, opc, sid);
+ return pa->ver_ops->non_data_cmd(ctrl, opc, sid);

Same story...

Ok. We will drop this renaming patch.

}

static int pmic_arb_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
u16 addr, u8 *buf, size_t len)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pmic_arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
unsigned long flags;
u8 bc = len - 1;
u32 cmd;
@@ -321,16 +323,16 @@ static int pmic_arb_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
u32 offset;
mode_t mode;

- rc = pmic_arb->ver_ops->offset(pmic_arb, sid, addr, &offset);
+ rc = pa->ver_ops->offset(pa, sid, addr, &offset);
if (rc)
return rc;

- rc = pmic_arb->ver_ops->mode(pmic_arb, sid, addr, &mode);
+ rc = pa->ver_ops->mode(pa, sid, addr, &mode);
if (rc)
return rc;

if (!(mode & S_IRUSR)) {
- dev_err(&pmic_arb->spmic->dev,
+ dev_err(&pa->spmic->dev,
"error: impermissible read from peripheral sid:%d addr:0x%x\n",
sid, addr);
return -EPERM;
@@ -353,30 +355,29 @@ static int pmic_arb_read_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
else
return -EINVAL;

- cmd = pmic_arb->ver_ops->fmt_cmd(opc, sid, addr, bc);
+ cmd = pa->ver_ops->fmt_cmd(opc, sid, addr, bc);

- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
- pmic_arb_set_rd_cmd(pmic_arb, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
- rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pmic_arb->rd_base, sid, addr);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pa->lock, flags);
+ pmic_arb_set_rd_cmd(pa, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
+ rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pa->rd_base, sid, addr);
if (rc)
goto done;

- pa_read_data(pmic_arb, buf, offset + PMIC_ARB_RDATA0,
+ pa_read_data(pa, buf, offset + PMIC_ARB_RDATA0,
min_t(u8, bc, 3));

if (bc > 3)
- pa_read_data(pmic_arb, buf + 4,
- offset + PMIC_ARB_RDATA1, bc - 4);
+ pa_read_data(pa, buf + 4, offset + PMIC_ARB_RDATA1, bc - 4);

done:
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);
return rc;
}

static int pmic_arb_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
u16 addr, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pmic_arb = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
unsigned long flags;
u8 bc = len - 1;
u32 cmd;
@@ -384,16 +385,16 @@ static int pmic_arb_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
u32 offset;
mode_t mode;

- rc = pmic_arb->ver_ops->offset(pmic_arb, sid, addr, &offset);
+ rc = pa->ver_ops->offset(pa, sid, addr, &offset);
if (rc)
return rc;

- rc = pmic_arb->ver_ops->mode(pmic_arb, sid, addr, &mode);
+ rc = pa->ver_ops->mode(pa, sid, addr, &mode);
if (rc)
return rc;

if (!(mode & S_IWUSR)) {
- dev_err(&pmic_arb->spmic->dev,
+ dev_err(&pa->spmic->dev,
"error: impermissible write to peripheral sid:%d addr:0x%x\n",
sid, addr);
return -EPERM;
@@ -418,20 +419,18 @@ static int pmic_arb_write_cmd(struct spmi_controller *ctrl, u8 opc, u8 sid,
else
return -EINVAL;

- cmd = pmic_arb->ver_ops->fmt_cmd(opc, sid, addr, bc);
+ cmd = pa->ver_ops->fmt_cmd(opc, sid, addr, bc);

/* Write data to FIFOs */
- raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
- pa_write_data(pmic_arb, buf, offset + PMIC_ARB_WDATA0,
- min_t(u8, bc, 3));
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pa->lock, flags);
+ pa_write_data(pa, buf, offset + PMIC_ARB_WDATA0, min_t(u8, bc, 3));
if (bc > 3)
- pa_write_data(pmic_arb, buf + 4,
- offset + PMIC_ARB_WDATA1, bc - 4);
+ pa_write_data(pa, buf + 4, offset + PMIC_ARB_WDATA1, bc - 4);

/* Start the transaction */
- pmic_arb_base_write(pmic_arb, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
- rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pmic_arb->wr_base, sid, addr);
- raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmic_arb->lock, flags);
+ pmic_arb_base_write(pa, offset + PMIC_ARB_CMD, cmd);
+ rc = pmic_arb_wait_for_done(ctrl, pa->wr_base, sid, addr);
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);

return rc;
}

Same story for all this diff.

Ok. We will drop this renaming patch.

@@ -457,7 +456,7 @@ struct spmi_pmic_arb_qpnpint_type {
static void qpnpint_spmi_write(struct irq_data *d, u8 reg, void *buf,
size_t len)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
u8 sid = d->hwirq >> 24;
u8 per = d->hwirq >> 16;

@@ -470,7 +469,7 @@ static void qpnpint_spmi_write(struct irq_data *d, u8 reg, void *buf,

static void qpnpint_spmi_read(struct irq_data *d, u8 reg, void *buf, size_t len)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
u8 sid = d->hwirq >> 24;
u8 per = d->hwirq >> 16;

@@ -481,7 +480,7 @@ static void qpnpint_spmi_read(struct irq_data *d, u8 reg, void *buf, size_t len)
d->irq);
}

-static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa, u8 apid)
+static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, u8 apid)
{
unsigned int irq;
u32 status;
@@ -490,7 +489,7 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa, u8 apid)
status = readl_relaxed(pa->intr + pa->ver_ops->irq_status(apid));
while (status) {
id = ffs(status) - 1;
- status &= ~(1 << id);
+ status &= ~BIT(id);
irq = irq_find_mapping(pa->domain,
pa->apid_to_ppid[apid] << 16
| id << 8
@@ -501,7 +500,7 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa, u8 apid)

static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
void __iomem *intr = pa->intr;
int first = pa->min_apid >> 5;
@@ -516,7 +515,7 @@ static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
pa->ver_ops->owner_acc_status(pa->ee, i));
while (status) {
id = ffs(status) - 1;
- status &= ~(1 << id);
+ status &= ~BIT(id);
periph_interrupt(pa, id + i * 32);
}
}
@@ -526,23 +525,23 @@ static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)

static void qpnpint_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
u8 irq = d->hwirq >> 8;
u8 apid = d->hwirq;
unsigned long flags;
u8 data;

raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pa->lock, flags);
- writel_relaxed(1 << irq, pa->intr + pa->ver_ops->irq_clear(apid));
+ writel_relaxed(BIT(irq), pa->intr + pa->ver_ops->irq_clear(apid));
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);

- data = 1 << irq;
+ data = BIT(irq);
qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_LATCHED_CLR, &data, 1);
}

static void qpnpint_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
u8 irq = d->hwirq >> 8;
u8 apid = d->hwirq;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -558,13 +557,13 @@ static void qpnpint_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);

- data = 1 << irq;
+ data = BIT(irq);
qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_EN_CLR, &data, 1);
}

static void qpnpint_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
{
- struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
u8 irq = d->hwirq >> 8;
u8 apid = d->hwirq;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -579,7 +578,7 @@ static void qpnpint_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
}
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pa->lock, flags);

- data = 1 << irq;
+ data = BIT(irq);
qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_EN_SET, &data, 1);
}

@@ -590,7 +589,7 @@ static void qpnpint_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)

qpnpint_irq_unmask(d);

- data = 1 << irq;
+ data = BIT(irq);
qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_LATCHED_CLR, &data, 1);
}

@@ -598,25 +597,26 @@ static int qpnpint_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int flow_type)
{
struct spmi_pmic_arb_qpnpint_type type;
u8 irq = d->hwirq >> 8;
+ u8 bit_mask_irq = BIT(irq);

Why the local variable? Just do the ~BIT(irq) thing in place and
let the compiler take care of the hoist?

Sure.. we will remove this local variable in the subsequent patch.

qpnpint_spmi_read(d, QPNPINT_REG_SET_TYPE, &type, sizeof(type));

if (flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING | IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING)) {
- type.type |= 1 << irq;
+ type.type |= bit_mask_irq;
if (flow_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING)
- type.polarity_high |= 1 << irq;
+ type.polarity_high |= bit_mask_irq;
if (flow_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING)
- type.polarity_low |= 1 << irq;
+ type.polarity_low |= bit_mask_irq;
} else {
if ((flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)) &&
(flow_type & (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW)))
return -EINVAL;

- type.type &= ~(1 << irq); /* level trig */
+ type.type &= ~bit_mask_irq; /* level trig */
if (flow_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)
- type.polarity_high |= 1 << irq;
+ type.polarity_high |= bit_mask_irq;
else
- type.polarity_low |= 1 << irq;
+ type.polarity_low |= bit_mask_irq;
}

qpnpint_spmi_write(d, QPNPINT_REG_SET_TYPE, &type, sizeof(type));
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ struct spmi_pmic_arb_irq_spec {

Overall I see little to no value with this patch. I suggest you
drop the rename. The BIT() thing may be ok, but again, not sure
there's any benefit.

Ok.. Sure. We drop out the renaming patch in the next version
and will have only BIT() macro patch.

Next message: Ben Hutchings: "[PATCH 3.16 095/212] x86/pci-calgary: Fix iommu_free() comparison of unsigned expression >= 0"
Previous message: Jonathan Corbet: "Re: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_attr_interfmode_store"
Next in thread: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH V1 02/15] spmi: pmic-arb: rename spmi_pmic_arb_dev to spmi_pmic_arb"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]