linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next v4 5/5] mtd: atmel-quadspi: add driver for Atmel QSPI controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 08:57:49 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>
Cc:	Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
	nicolas.ferre@...el.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org, zajec5@...il.com,
	beanhuo@...ron.com, juhosg@...nwrt.org, shijie.huang@...el.com,
	ben@...adent.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
	ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v4 5/5] mtd: atmel-quadspi: add driver for
 Atmel QSPI controller

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:22:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 12:17:37 PM, Cyrille Pitchen wrote:
> > If you don't mind, I'd rather keep some of these inline functions. I have
> > no strong justification, it's more a personal taste: it makes lines
> > shorter as it avoids the need to add "->regs + ".
> > Also it makes the code consistent with other Atmel drivers which already
> > use such wrappers.
> > 
> > However I'll fix the comment and remove the byte and word versions, which
> > are not used. So only qspi_readl() and qspi_writel() are left.
> > 
> > Does it sound good to you?
> 
> In my mind, seeing explicit readl_relaxed() somewhere is much easier to
> digest than seeing some wrapper, which I have to look up. But please do
> wait for others to voice their concern too, I might not be the best person
> to tell you what to do when it comes to wrapping IO accessors ;-)

I could go either way, but there are times where local wrapper I/O
accessors are useful. Case in point: it makes it really easy to make the
choice between readl() and readl_relaxed() in one place (i.e., the
discussion you had in another branch of this thread). That's been useful
for me on brcmnand, where certain platforms (big-endian MIPS) have
different assumptions about endianness than your average platform. Also,
it helps with things like what Robert Jarzmik is trying to do on
pxa3xx_nand -- add debug info to print every register read/write.

Also as Cyrille mentioned, personal taste is a factor.

Anyway, I'll go with whatever makes sense between y'all. I don't mind.

Brian
--
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/