lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:15:15 +0530
From:	Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@...il.com>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	yulgon.kim@...sung.com, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Praveen Paneri <p.paneri@...sung.com>,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	jg1.han@...sung.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	balbi@...com, kishon@...com, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] usb: phy: samsung: Add host phy support to
 samsung-phy driver

Hi Doug,


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> Vivek,
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Vivek Gautam <gautamvivek1987@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_REFCLKSEL_MASK              (0x3)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_REFCLKSEL_XTAL              (0x0 << 19)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_REFCLKSEL_EXTL              (0x1 << 19)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_REFCLKSEL_CLKCORE           (0x2 << 19)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_MASK                   (0x7 << 16)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL(_x)                    ((_x) << 16)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_50M             (0x7)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_24M             (0x5)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_20M             (0x4)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_19200K          (0x3)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_12M             (0x2)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_10M             (0x1)
>>>> +#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_9600K           (0x0)
>>>
>>> Add the shifts to the #defines and remove HOST_CTRL0_FSEL(_x).  That
>>> makes it match the older phy more closely.
>>>
>> Wouldn't it hamper the readability when shifts are used ??
>> I mean if we have something like this -
>>
>> phyhost |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL(phyclk)
>>
>> so, if we are using the shifts then
>> phyhost |= (HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_24M << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
>
> I was actually suggesting modifying the #defines like this:
>
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT 16
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_MASK                   (0x7 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_50M             (0x7 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_24M             (0x5 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_20M             (0x4 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_19200K          (0x3 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_12M             (0x2 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_10M             (0x1 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
> #define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_9600K           (0x0 << HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_SHIFT)
>
> ...then the code doesn't need to think about shifts, right?
>

right right, sorry i din't get your point earlier. :-(

this way things will be similar in samsung_usbphy_get_refclk_freq()
across exynos 5 and older SoCs.

Is it fine if we don't use macro for SHIFT, earlier code also doesn't use it.
Can we just do like this ..
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_MASK                       (0x7 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_50M            (0x7 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_24M            (0x5 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_20M            (0x4 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_19200K       (0x3 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_12M            (0x2 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_10M            (0x1 << 16)
#define HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_9600K         (0x0 << 16)

>
>>>>         if (IS_ERR(ref_clk)) {
>>>>                 dev_err(sphy->dev, "Failed to get reference clock\n");
>>>>                 return PTR_ERR(ref_clk);
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> -       switch (clk_get_rate(ref_clk)) {
>>>> -       case 12 * MHZ:
>>>> -               refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_12M;
>>>> -               break;
>>>> -       case 24 * MHZ:
>>>> -               refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_24M;
>>>> -               break;
>>>> -       case 48 * MHZ:
>>>> -               refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_48M;
>>>> -               break;
>>>> -       default:
>>>> -               if (sphy->cpu_type == TYPE_S3C64XX)
>>>> -                       refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_48M;
>>>> -               else
>>>> +       if (sphy->cpu_type == TYPE_EXYNOS5250) {
>>>> +               /* set clock frequency for PLL */
>>>> +               switch (clk_get_rate(ref_clk)) {
>>>> +               case 96 * 100000:
>>>
>>> nit: change to 9600 * KHZ to match; below too.
>>>
>> sure.
>>
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_9600K;
>>>
>>> Why |= with 0?
>>>
>> kept this just to keep things look similar :-). will remove this line,
>
> My comment was about keeping things similar.  Right now the 5250 code
> has the |= and the non-5250 code doesn't.  I don't care which is
> picked but the two sides of the "if" should be symmetric.
>

True, it's good to maintain symmetry in the code.
I shall amend the code as suggested.

> See parts of the patch below.
>
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 10 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_10M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 12 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_12M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 192 * 100000:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_19200K;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 20 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_20M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 50 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_50M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 24 * MHZ:
>>>> +               default:
>>>> +                       /* default reference clock */
>>>> +                       refclk_freq |= HOST_CTRL0_FSEL_CLKSEL_24M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               }
>>>> +       } else {
>>>> +               switch (clk_get_rate(ref_clk)) {
>>>> +               case 12 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_12M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 24 * MHZ:
>>>>                         refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_24M;
>>>> -               break;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               case 48 * MHZ:
>>>> +                       refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_48M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               default:
>>>> +                       if (sphy->cpu_type == TYPE_S3C64XX)
>>>> +                               refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_48M;
>>>> +                       else
>>>> +                               refclk_freq = PHYCLK_CLKSEL_24M;
>>>> +                       break;
>>>> +               }
>>>>         }
>>>>         clk_put(ref_clk);
>>>>
>>>>         return refclk_freq;
>>>>  }
>
> -Doug



-- 
Thanks & Regards
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists