lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 06/12] peci: Add a PECI adapter driver for Aspeed AST24xx/AST25xx
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 08:11, Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> + ret = of_property_read_u32(priv->dev->of_node, "cmd-timeout-ms",
> + &priv->cmd_timeout_ms);
> + if (ret || priv->cmd_timeout_ms > PECI_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS_MAX ||
> + priv->cmd_timeout_ms == 0) {
> + if (!ret)
> + dev_warn(priv->dev,
> + "Invalid cmd-timeout-ms : %u. Use default : %u\n",
> + priv->cmd_timeout_ms,
> + PECI_CMD_TIMEOUT_MS_DEFAULT);

As this property is documented as optional, I'd split out the checks
so you only warn when the value provided is invalid.

> +
> + regmap_write(priv->regmap, ASPEED_PECI_CTRL,
> + FIELD_PREP(PECI_CTRL_CLK_DIV_MASK, PECI_CLK_DIV_DEFAULT) |
> + PECI_CTRL_PECI_CLK_EN);
> +
> + /**

Just the one *.

> + * Timing negotiation period setting.
> + * The unit of the programmed value is 4 times of PECI clock period.
> + */
> + regmap_write(priv->regmap, ASPEED_PECI_TIMING,
> + FIELD_PREP(PECI_TIMING_MESSAGE_MASK, msg_timing) |
> + FIELD_PREP(PECI_TIMING_ADDRESS_MASK, addr_timing));

> +static int aspeed_peci_xfer(struct peci_adapter *adapter,
> + struct peci_xfer_msg *msg)
> +{
> + struct aspeed_peci *priv = peci_get_adapdata(adapter);
> +
> + return aspeed_peci_xfer_native(priv, msg);
> +}

It looks like you could do the peci_get_adapdata in
aspeed_peci_xfer_native and drop the need for this wrapper.

> +
> +static int aspeed_peci_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{

>
> + res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
> + base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> + if (IS_ERR(base)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(base);
> + goto err_put_adapter_dev;
> + }
> +
> + priv->regmap = devm_regmap_init_mmio(&pdev->dev, base,
> + &aspeed_peci_regmap_config);
> + if (IS_ERR(priv->regmap)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(priv->regmap);
> + goto err_put_adapter_dev;
> + }
> +
> + /**
> + * We check that the regmap works on this very first access,
> + * but as this is an MMIO-backed regmap, subsequent regmap
> + * access is not going to fail and we skip error checks from
> + * this point.

Why do you use a regmap for this driver? AFAICT it has exclusive
ownership over the register range it uses, which is sometimes a reason
to use a regmap over a mmio region.

I'm not sure if you've ever disassembled drivers/base/regmap/regmap.o,
but if you do you will find that a single mmio read turns into
hundreds of instructions.

Cheers,

Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 12:38    [W:0.144 / U:10.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site