linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] soundwire: intel: reuse code for wait loops to set/clear bits

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]

Message-ID: <20200320133834.GB4885@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 19:08:34 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] soundwire: intel: reuse code for wait loops to
 set/clear bits

On 11-03-20, 17:10, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> Refactor code and use same routines on set/clear
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/intel.c b/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
> index 28a8563c4e0f..1a3b828b03a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
> @@ -134,40 +134,33 @@ static inline void intel_writew(void __iomem *base, int offset, u16 value)
>  	writew(value, base + offset);
>  }
>  
> +static int intel_wait_bit(void __iomem *base, int offset, u32 mask, u32 target)
> +{
> +	int timeout = 10;
> +	u32 reg_read;
> +
> +	do {
> +		reg_read = readl(base + offset);
> +		if ((reg_read & mask) == target)
> +			return 0;
> +
> +		timeout--;
> +		udelay(50);

This should use udelay_range, but this can be different patch as this is
code move, so okay

> +	} while (timeout != 0);
> +
> +	return -EAGAIN;
> +}
> +
>  static int intel_clear_bit(void __iomem *base, int offset, u32 value, u32 mask)
>  {
> -	int timeout = 10;
> -	u32 reg_read;
> -
>  	writel(value, base + offset);
> -	do {
> -		reg_read = readl(base + offset);
> -		if (!(reg_read & mask))
> -			return 0;
> -
> -		timeout--;
> -		udelay(50);
> -	} while (timeout != 0);
> -
> -	return -EAGAIN;
> +	return intel_wait_bit(base, offset, mask, 0);
>  }
>  
>  static int intel_set_bit(void __iomem *base, int offset, u32 value, u32 mask)
>  {
> -	int timeout = 10;
> -	u32 reg_read;
> -
>  	writel(value, base + offset);
> -	do {
> -		reg_read = readl(base + offset);
> -		if (reg_read & mask)
> -			return 0;
> -
> -		timeout--;
> -		udelay(50);
> -	} while (timeout != 0);
> -
> -	return -EAGAIN;
> +	return intel_wait_bit(base, offset, mask, mask);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.20.1

-- 
~Vinod