[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YYAYNWCpzCbYe82i@ripper>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:39:17 -0700
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To: Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@...cinc.com>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com,
quic_ppratap@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] usb: dwc3: qcom: Add helper functions to
enable,disable wake irqs
On Mon 01 Nov 00:53 PDT 2021, Sandeep Maheswaram wrote:
> Adding helper functions to enable,disable wake irqs to make
> the code simple and readable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@...cinc.com>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> index 9abbd01..54461f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> @@ -296,50 +296,44 @@ static void dwc3_qcom_interconnect_exit(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom)
> icc_put(qcom->icc_path_apps);
> }
>
> +static void dwc3_qcom_enable_wakeup_irq(int irq)
> +{
> + if (!irq)
> + return;
> +
> + enable_irq(irq);
> + enable_irq_wake(irq);
> +}
> +
> +static void dwc3_qcom_disable_wakeup_irq(int irq)
> +{
> + if (!irq)
> + return;
> +
> + disable_irq_wake(irq);
Now that you touch this code path.
I presume keeping these interrupts enabled during runtime would cause
the interrupt to fire during normal operation, but why do we need to
toggle the irq_wake? Can't we just leave that flag set always?
> + disable_irq_nosync(irq);
> +}
> +
> static void dwc3_qcom_disable_interrupts(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom)
> {
> - if (qcom->hs_phy_irq) {
> - disable_irq_wake(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
> - disable_irq_nosync(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_disable_wakeup_irq(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
Why don't we just replace *_phy_irq with an array and turn these two
function into two loops? That seems to be quite suitable for the
multi-port dwc found in e.g. sc8180x as well...
Regards,
Bjorn
>
> - if (qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq) {
> - disable_irq_wake(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
> - disable_irq_nosync(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_disable_wakeup_irq(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
>
> - if (qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq) {
> - disable_irq_wake(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
> - disable_irq_nosync(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_disable_wakeup_irq(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
>
> - if (qcom->ss_phy_irq) {
> - disable_irq_wake(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> - disable_irq_nosync(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_disable_wakeup_irq(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> }
>
> static void dwc3_qcom_enable_interrupts(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom)
> {
> - if (qcom->hs_phy_irq) {
> - enable_irq(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
> - enable_irq_wake(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_enable_wakeup_irq(qcom->hs_phy_irq);
>
> - if (qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq) {
> - enable_irq(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
> - enable_irq_wake(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_enable_wakeup_irq(qcom->dp_hs_phy_irq);
>
> - if (qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq) {
> - enable_irq(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
> - enable_irq_wake(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_enable_wakeup_irq(qcom->dm_hs_phy_irq);
>
> - if (qcom->ss_phy_irq) {
> - enable_irq(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> - enable_irq_wake(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> - }
> + dwc3_qcom_enable_wakeup_irq(qcom->ss_phy_irq);
> }
>
> static int dwc3_qcom_suspend(struct dwc3_qcom *qcom)
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists