[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yw48R+EBmmZYl9x+@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:35:19 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Brian Cain <bcain@...cinc.com>, linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v5] regmap: mmio: Support accelerared noinc operations
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Use the newly added callback for accelerated noinc MMIO
> to provide writesb, writesw, writesl, writesq, readsb, readsw,
> readsl and readsq.
>
> A special quirk is needed to deal with big endian regmaps: there
> are no accelerated operations defined for big endian, so fall
> back to calling the big endian operations itereatively for this
> case.
>
> The Hexagon architecture turns out to have an incomplete
> <asm/io.h>: writesb() is not implemented. Fix this by doing
> what other architectures do: include <asm-generic/io.h> into
> the <asm/io.h> file.
Wonderful!
So, I have seen a recent blow up by kernel bot due to Alpha issues on these
accessors.
Also see below for the further followups.
...
> + if (!IS_ERR(ctx->clk)) {
> + ret = clk_enable(ctx->clk);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + }
It's a new place of the duplicating check, can we have a helper for that?
...
> + /*
> + * There are no native, assembly-optimized write single register
> + * operations for big endian, so fall back to emulation if this
> + * is needed. (Single bytes are fine, they are not affected by
> + * endianness.)
> + */
Wouldn't be faster to memdup() / swap / use corresponding IO accessor?
...
> + /*
> + * There are no native, assembly-optimized write single register
> + * operations for big endian, so fall back to emulation if this
> + * is needed. (Single bytes are fine, they are not affected by
> + * endianness.)
> + */
> + if (ctx->big_endian && (ctx->val_bytes > 1)) {
> + switch (ctx->val_bytes) {
> + case 2:
> + {
> + u16 *valp = (u16 *)val;
> + for (i = 0; i < val_count; i++)
> + valp[i] = swab16(valp[i]);
> + break;
> + }
> + case 4:
> + {
> + u32 *valp = (u32 *)val;
> + for (i = 0; i < val_count; i++)
> + valp[i] = swab32(valp[i]);
> + break;
> + }
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + case 8:
> + {
> + u64 *valp = (u64 *)val;
> + for (i = 0; i < val_count; i++)
> + valp[i] = swab64(valp[i]);
> + break;
> + }
> +#endif
> + default:
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
So, two questions here:
1) can we use helpers from include/linux/byteorder/generic.h, such as
cpu_to_be32_array()/be32_to_cpu_array()?
2) have you considered using memcpy_toio() / memcpy_fromio() and why
it's not okay to use them?
...
> +
> +
Single blank line is enough.
> +out_clk:
> + if (!IS_ERR(ctx->clk))
> + clk_disable(ctx->clk);
> +
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
Seems like misrebase? I believe this has to be fixed.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists