linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Reorganize register and bitfield definitions

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: <047950c0-fcf0-428a-8ca1-dff0a6f944cd@163.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 20:39:11 +0800
From: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
 heiko@...ech.de, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
 jingoohan1@...il.com, shawn.lin@...k-chips.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Reorganize register and bitfield
 definitions



On 2025/4/22 20:30, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:28:29PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
>> Register definitions were scattered with ambiguous names (e.g.,
>> PCIE_RDLH_LINK_UP_CHGED in PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_STATUS_MISC) and lacked
>> hierarchical grouping. Magic values for bit operations reduced code
>> clarity.
>>
>> Group registers and their associated bitfields logically. This improves
>> maintainability and aligns the code with hardware documentation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans Zhang <18255117159@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 42 +++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
>> index fd5827bbfae3..cdc8afc6cfc1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>    * Author: Simon Xue <xxm@...k-chips.com>
>>    */
>>   
>> +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
>>   #include <linux/clk.h>
>>   #include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
>>   #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>> @@ -34,30 +35,35 @@
>>   
>>   #define to_rockchip_pcie(x) dev_get_drvdata((x)->dev)
>>   
>> -#define PCIE_CLIENT_RC_MODE		HIWORD_UPDATE_BIT(0x40)
>> -#define PCIE_CLIENT_EP_MODE		HIWORD_UPDATE(0xf0, 0x0)
>> -#define PCIE_CLIENT_ENABLE_LTSSM	HIWORD_UPDATE_BIT(0xc)
>> -#define PCIE_CLIENT_DISABLE_LTSSM	HIWORD_UPDATE(0x0c, 0x8)
>> -#define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_STATUS_MSG_RX	0x04
>> +#define PCIE_CLIENT_GENERAL_CONTROL	0x0
>> +#define  PCIE_CLIENT_RC_MODE		HIWORD_UPDATE_BIT(0x40)
>> +#define  PCIE_CLIENT_EP_MODE		HIWORD_UPDATE(0xf0, 0x0)
>> +#define  PCIE_CLIENT_ENABLE_LTSSM	HIWORD_UPDATE_BIT(0xc)
>> +#define  PCIE_CLIENT_DISABLE_LTSSM	HIWORD_UPDATE(0x0c, 0x8)
>> +
>> +#define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_STATUS_MSG_RX	0x4
>> +#define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_STATUS_LEGACY	0x8
>> +
>>   #define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_STATUS_MISC	0x10
>> +#define  PCIE_RDLH_LINK_UP_CHGED	BIT(1)
>> +#define  PCIE_LINK_REQ_RST_NOT_INT	BIT(2)
>> +
>> +#define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_MASK_LEGACY	0x1c
>>   #define PCIE_CLIENT_INTR_MASK_MISC	0x24
>> +
>>   #define PCIE_CLIENT_POWER		0x2c
>> +#define  PME_READY_ENTER_L23		BIT(3)
>> +
>>   #define PCIE_CLIENT_MSG_GEN		0x34
>> -#define PME_READY_ENTER_L23		BIT(3)
>> -#define PME_TURN_OFF			(BIT(4) | BIT(20))
>> -#define PME_TO_ACK			(BIT(9) | BIT(25))
>> -#define PCIE_SMLH_LINKUP		BIT(16)
>> -#define PCIE_RDLH_LINKUP		BIT(17)
>> -#define PCIE_LINKUP			(PCIE_SMLH_LINKUP | PCIE_RDLH_LINKUP)
> 
> This patch removes PCIE_LINKUP, without adding it somewhere else
> so I don't think this patch will compile.
> 
> I think the removal of this line has to be in patch 3/3.
> 

Hi Niklas,

Thank you very much for your reply.  Yes, I replied to you in patch 0003.

> 
> 
> Also, I think that Bjorn's primary concern:
> """
> The #defines for register offsets and bits are kind of a mess,
> e.g., PCIE_SMLH_LINKUP, PCIE_RDLH_LINKUP, PCIE_LINKUP,
> PCIE_L0S_ENTRY, and PCIE_LTSSM_STATUS_MASK are in
> PCIE_CLIENT_LTSSM_STATUS, but you couldn't tell that from the
> names, and they're not even defined together.
> """"
> 
> is that the fields are not prefixed with the register name.
> 
> the secondary concern is that they are not grouped together.
> 
> This patch is just solving the secondary concern.
> 
> Since you are fixing his secondary concern, should you perhaps also
> address his primary concern?

Ok. I missed this problem and I will fix it in the next version.

Best regards,
Hans