[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184931511.16760.30.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:38:31 +0200
From: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hcegtvedt@...el.com>
To: Andrew Victor <andrew@...people.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-avr32 <kernel@...32linux.org>,
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Patrice Vilchez <patrice.vilchez@....atmel.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com>,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@...fundet.no>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][RESEND] Driver for the Atmel on-chip SSC on AT32AP
and AT91.
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 08:55 +0200, Andrew Victor wrote:
> > Just an example from sound/soc/at91/at91-ssc.c
> >
> > rcmr = (( ssc_p->rcmr_period << 24) & AT91_SSC_PERIOD)
> > | (( 1 << 16) & AT91_SSC_STTDLY)
> > | (( AT91_SSC_START_FALLING_RF ) & AT91_SSC_START)
> > | (( AT91_SSC_CK_RISING ) & AT91_SSC_CKI)
> > | (( AT91_SSC_CKO_NONE ) & AT91_SSC_CKO)
> > | (( AT91_SSC_CKS_DIV ) & AT91_SSC_CKS);
>
> Well, I didn't write the above, so it's more complex than it needs to
> be.
>
> For bitfields where the user can input any value we would usually add
> to
> the header:
> #define AT91_SSC_STTDLY_(x) ((x) << 16)
> #define AT91_SSC_PERIOD_(x) ((x) << 24)
>
> Then it can simply be re-written as:
>
> rcmr = AT91_SSC_PERIOD(ssc_p->rcmr_period)
> | AT91_SSC_STTDLY(1)
> | AT91_SSC_START_FALLING_RF
> | AT91_SSC_CK_RISING
> | AT91_SSC_CKO_NONE
> | AT91_SSC_CKS_DIV;
This is more sane and readable.
> > Would with the header style for atmel-ssc be:
> >
> > rcmr = SSC_BF(RCMR_PERIOD, ssc_p->rcmr_period)
> > | SSC_BF(RCMR_STTDLY, 1)
> > | SSC_BF(RCMR_START, 4)
> > | SSC_BF(RCMR_CKI, 1)
> > | SSC_BF(RCMR_CKO, 0)
> > | SSC_BF(RCMR_CKS, 0);
> >
> > I find the latter more readable and compact, the user also does not
> need
> > to know the offset of the different bit-fields.
>
> But the user does then constantly have to refer to the datasheet to
> determine what CKI = 1 or CKS = 0 means.
As I said two lines furter down, I think these defines are nice. Will
adding bit-field descriptors make the SSC driver more usable by the AT91
people?
I guess there is also the possibility to include the ARM headers for
that architecture and use the definitions in the header file for AVR32.
--
With kind regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt, siv.ing. (M.Sc.)
Applications Engineer - AVR32 System Solutions - Atmel Norway
-
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