[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250405182947.06d5e67f@jic23-huawei>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 18:29:47 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
To: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
Cc: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>, Matti Vaittinen
<matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Javier
Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] iio: adc: ti-adc128s052: Simplify using
be16_to_cpu()
On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:16:43 +0300
Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> On 03/04/2025 00:04, David Lechner wrote:
> > On 4/2/25 1:09 AM, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> >> The register data is 12-bit big-endian data. Use be16_to_cpu() to do
> >> the conversion, and simple bitwise AND for masking to make it more
> >> obvious.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >> Revision history:
> >> v1 => v2:
> >> - Fix commit msg to reflect the fact there was no bug
> >> - Drop Fixes tag
> >> - Use union for rx / tx buffer to avoid casting
> >> - Keep the shared message protected by the mutex
> >> ---
> >> drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
> >> index a456ea78462f..3e69a5fce010 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-adc128s052.c
> >> @@ -28,32 +28,34 @@ struct adc128 {
> >> struct regulator *reg;
> >> struct mutex lock;
> >>
> >> - u8 buffer[2] __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN);
> >> + union {
> >> + __be16 rx_buffer;
> >> + u8 tx_buffer[2];
As below. Maybe
__be16 buffer16;
u8 buffer[2];
> >> + } __aligned(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN);
> >> };
> >>
> >> static int adc128_adc_conversion(struct adc128 *adc, u8 channel)
> >> {
> >> int ret;
> >> + char *msg = &adc->tx_buffer[0];
> >>
> >> mutex_lock(&adc->lock);
> >>
> >> - adc->buffer[0] = channel << 3;
> >> - adc->buffer[1] = 0;
> >> + msg[0] = channel << 3;
> >> + msg[1] = 0;
> >>
> >> - ret = spi_write(adc->spi, &adc->buffer, 2);
> >> + ret = spi_write(adc->spi, msg, sizeof(adc->tx_buffer));
I'd get rid of msg as it's now just confusing given we are
using the sizeof() here.
> >> if (ret < 0) {
> >> mutex_unlock(&adc->lock);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - ret = spi_read(adc->spi, &adc->buffer, 2);
> >> -
> >> + ret = spi_read(adc->spi, &adc->rx_buffer, 2);
sizeof(adc->rx_buffer)
> >> mutex_unlock(&adc->lock);
> >> -
> >> if (ret < 0)
> >> return ret;
> >>
> >> - return ((adc->buffer[0] << 8 | adc->buffer[1]) & 0xFFF);
> >> + return be16_to_cpu(adc->rx_buffer) & 0xFFF;
> >
> >
> > The cast isn't exactly beautiful, but this would save a lot of
> > lines of diff and a few lines of code by avoiding the need for
> > the union and the local msg variable.
> >
> > return be16_to_cpup((__be16 *)adc->buffer) & 0xFFF;
The cast only works because we have forced the alignment for DMA safety.
That to me is a little fragile.
You could do get_unaligned_be16() which doesn't need the cast then carry
on using the original buffer.
>
> Thanks again for the review David :)
>
> I am unsure which way to go. I kind of like having the __be16 in the
> struct, as it immediately yells "data from device is big-endian". OTOH,
> I've never loved unions (and, it silences the above "yelling" quite a
> bit). I still think this might be the first time I really see a valid
> use-case for an union :) And, you're right this adds more lines,
> besides, the cast doesn't look that ugly to me. Yet, I originally had a
> cast probably as simple as this (and I also had the __be16 in the
> struct), and Jonathan suggested using union to avoid it...
>
> At the end of the day, I suppose I am Okay with any of these 3
> approaches. Original cast, union or this cast you suggest. Jonathan, any
> preferences on your side?
Majority of the diff is really about renaming buffer to tx_buffer.
Could just not bother doing that and instead have buffer and buffer16
as the two union elements. With msg gone as suggested above, then the diff
becomes only a few lines and you get to keep the nicety of it being either
a pair of u8s or a __be16.
Jonathan
>
> >
> >> }
> >>
> >> static int adc128_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >
>
> Yours,
> -- Matti
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists