[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a8bd608c-d94c-f4a2-e3b1-3381c9098caf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 11:44:12 +0200
From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nfraprado@...labora.com, rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com,
zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] soc: mediatek: pwrap: Use readx_poll_timeout()
instead of custom function
On 17/05/2022 11:41, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 17/05/22 11:25, Matthias Brugger ha scritto:
>>
>>
>> On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>> Function pwrap_wait_for_state() is a function that polls an address
>>> through a helper function, but this is the very same operation that
>>> the readx_poll_timeout macro means to do.
>>> Convert all instances of calling pwrap_wait_for_state() to instead
>>> use the read_poll_timeout macro.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
>>> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 60 +++++++++++++++-------------
>>> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> index bf39a64f3ecc..54a5300ab72b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c
>>> @@ -13,6 +13,9 @@
>>> #include <linux/regmap.h>
>>> #include <linux/reset.h>
>>> +#define PWRAP_POLL_DELAY_US 10
>>> +#define PWRAP_POLL_TIMEOUT_US 10000
>>> +
>>> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_IORD_ARB_EN 0x4
>>> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_WACS3_EN 0x10
>>> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_INIT_DONE3 0x14
>>> @@ -1241,27 +1244,14 @@ static bool pwrap_is_fsm_idle_and_sync_idle(struct
>>> pmic_wrapper *wrp)
>>> (val & PWRAP_STATE_SYNC_IDLE0);
>>> }
>>> -static int pwrap_wait_for_state(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp,
>>> - bool (*fp)(struct pmic_wrapper *))
>>> -{
>>> - unsigned long timeout;
>>> -
>>> - timeout = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(10000);
>>> -
>>> - do {
>>> - if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
>>> - return fp(wrp) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> - if (fp(wrp))
>>> - return 0;
>>> - } while (1);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> static int pwrap_read16(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 adr, u32 *rdata)
>>> {
>>> + bool tmp;
>>> int ret;
>>> u32 val;
>>> - ret = pwrap_wait_for_state(wrp, pwrap_is_fsm_idle);
>>> + ret = readx_poll_timeout(pwrap_is_fsm_idle, wrp, tmp, tmp,
>>
>> hm, if we make the cond (tmp > 0) that would help to understand the code. At
>> least I had to think about it for a moment. But I leave it to you if you think
>> it's worth the effort.
>>
>
> I would prefer size over readability in this case... if we do (tmp > 0), it would
> be incorrect to keep tmp as a `bool`, we would have to set it as an integer var,
> which is unnecessarily bigger (that's the reason why I wrote it like so!).
>
> Another way to increase human readability would be to do (tmp == true), but it
> looks a bit weird to me, doesn't it?
> If you disagree about that looking weird, though, I can go with that one, perhaps!
>
You are right, just leave it as it is.
Regards,
Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists