| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1479471989.22212.19.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:26:29 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>, wsa@...-dreams.de,
robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com, Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com,
CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] i2c: designware: Refactoring of the
i2c-designware core and platform module
On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 11:19 +0000, Luis Oliveira wrote:
> - Factor out _master() parts of code to separate functions.
> - Standardize all code relatated to I2C master.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Oliveira <lolivei@...opsys.com>
Can you shrink Cc list to people who indeed are involved / concerned?
> ---
> Changes V2->V3: (Andy Shevchenko)
> - indentation and style fix
> - nothing else was changed in this patch from v2
Hmm...
May I add few more comments?
> @@ -87,13 +87,13 @@
> #define DW_IC_INTR_GEN_CALL 0x800
>
> #define DW_IC_INTR_DEFAULT_MASK (DW_IC_INTR_RX_FULL |
> \
> - DW_IC_INTR_TX_EMPTY | \
> DW_IC_INTR_TX_ABRT | \
> DW_IC_INTR_STOP_DET)
> -
Do you need to remove it?
I would leave it...
> +#define DW_IC_INTR_MASTER_MASK (DW_IC_INTR_DEFAULT_MAS
> K | \
> + DW_IC_INTR_TX_EMPTY)
...here.
> #define DW_IC_STATUS_ACTIVITY 0x1
> #define DW_IC_STATUS_TFE BIT(2)
> -#define DW_IC_STATUS_MST_ACTIVITY BIT(5)
> +#define DW_IC_STATUS_MASTER_ACTIVITY BIT(5)
> +static void i2c_dw_configure_fifo_master(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
> +{
> + /* Configure Tx/Rx FIFO threshold levels */
> + dw_writel(dev, dev->tx_fifo_depth / 2, DW_IC_TX_TL);
> + dw_writel(dev, 0, DW_IC_RX_TL);
> +
> + /* configure the i2c master */
> + dw_writel(dev, dev->master_cfg, DW_IC_CON);
> + dw_writel(dev, DW_IC_INTR_MASTER_MASK, DW_IC_INTR_MASK);
So, in the original code there were 3 writes, now 4. Please, put an
explanation into commit message.
> +}
> @@ -442,12 +453,9 @@ int i2c_dw_init(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
> "Hardware too old to adjust SDA hold
> time.\n");
> }
>
> - /* Configure Tx/Rx FIFO threshold levels */
> - dw_writel(dev, dev->tx_fifo_depth / 2, DW_IC_TX_TL);
> - dw_writel(dev, 0, DW_IC_RX_TL);
> -
> - /* configure the i2c master */
> - dw_writel(dev, dev->master_cfg , DW_IC_CON);
> + if ((dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_MASTER) &&
> + (dev->master_cfg & DW_IC_CON_SLAVE_DISABLE))
Indentation!
> + i2c_dw_configure_fifo_master(dev);
> -static irqreturn_t i2c_dw_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id)
> +static bool i2c_dw_irq_handler_master(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
Perhaps int?
> {
> - struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id;
> - u32 stat, enabled;
> -
> - enabled = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_ENABLE);
> - stat = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_RAW_INTR_STAT);
> - dev_dbg(dev->dev, "%s: enabled=%#x stat=%#x\n", __func__,
> enabled, stat);
> - if (!enabled || !(stat & ~DW_IC_INTR_ACTIVITY))
> - return IRQ_NONE;
> + u32 stat;
>
> stat = i2c_dw_read_clear_intrbits(dev);
>
> @@ -906,7 +907,26 @@ static irqreturn_t i2c_dw_isr(int this_irq, void
> *dev_id)
> i2c_dw_disable_int(dev);
> dw_writel(dev, stat, DW_IC_INTR_MASK);
> }
> + return true;
Ditto.
And basically I don't see how this would be not true? Are you planning
to add something here later in the series? Please, elaborate in the
commit message.
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t i2c_dw_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id)
> +{
> + struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id;
> + u32 stat, enabled, mode;
> +
> + enabled = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_ENABLE);
> + mode = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_CON);
> + stat = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_RAW_INTR_STAT);
> +
> + dev_dbg(dev->dev, "%s: enabled=%#x stat=%#x\n", __func__,
> enabled, stat);
For sake of easier review, can we keep same lines same and in the same
order?
struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id;
u32 stat, enabled;
enabled = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_ENABLE);
stat = dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_RAW_INTR_STAT);
dev_dbg(dev->dev, "%s: enabled=%#x stat=%#x\n", __func__,
enabled, stat);
if (!enabled || !(stat & ~DW_IC_INTR_ACTIVITY))
return IRQ_NONE;
Btw, I do not see how mode is used? Do you have a warning?
Please, fix.
> + if (!enabled || !(stat & ~DW_IC_INTR_ACTIVITY))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +static void i2c_dw_configure_master(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct dw_i2c_dev *dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + dev->master_cfg = DW_IC_CON_MASTER | DW_IC_CON_SLAVE_DISABLE
> |
> + DW_IC_CON_RESTART_EN;
> +
> + dev->functionality |= I2C_FUNC_10BIT_ADDR;
Where this came from?
> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "I am registed as a I2C Master!\n");
> +
> + switch (dev->clk_freq) {
> + case 100000:
> + dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_STD;
> + break;
> + case 3400000:
> + dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_HIGH;
> + break;
> + default:
> + dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_FAST;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(struct dw_i2c_dev *i_dev, bool
> prepare)
> {
> if (IS_ERR(i_dev->clk))
> @@ -222,19 +244,7 @@ static int dw_i2c_plat_probe(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_WORD_DATA |
> I2C_FUNC_SMBUS_I2C_BLOCK;
>
> - dev->master_cfg = DW_IC_CON_MASTER | DW_IC_CON_SLAVE_DISABLE
> |
> - DW_IC_CON_RESTART_EN;
> -
> - switch (dev->clk_freq) {
> - case 100000:
> - dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_STD;
> - break;
> - case 3400000:
> - dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_HIGH;
> - break;
> - default:
> - dev->master_cfg |= DW_IC_CON_SPEED_FAST;
> - }
> + i2c_dw_configure_master(pdev);
>
> dev->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
> if (!i2c_dw_plat_prepare_clk(dev, true)) {
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists