lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 03/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: drop wrappers for iomem accesses
Date


On 02/02/2019 09:11 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 04:07:19 +0000
> <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>>
>> The wrappers hid that the accesses are relaxed. Drop them.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
>> ---
>> v3: no change
>> v2: new patch
>>
>> drivers/spi/atmel-quadspi.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/atmel-quadspi.c b/drivers/spi/atmel-quadspi.c
>> index feeddcb25e1f..131374db0db4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/atmel-quadspi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/atmel-quadspi.c
>> @@ -175,17 +175,6 @@ static const struct qspi_mode sama5d2_qspi_modes[] = {
>> { 4, 4, 4, QSPI_IFR_WIDTH_QUAD_CMD },
>> };
>>
>> -/* Register access functions */
>> -static inline u32 qspi_readl(struct atmel_qspi *aq, u32 reg)
>> -{
>> - return readl_relaxed(aq->regs + reg);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static inline void qspi_writel(struct atmel_qspi *aq, u32 reg, u32 value)
>> -{
>> - writel_relaxed(value, aq->regs + reg);
>> -}
>> -
>> static inline bool is_compatible(const struct spi_mem_op *op,
>> const struct qspi_mode *mode)
>> {
>> @@ -229,6 +218,7 @@ static bool atmel_qspi_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem,
>> static int atmel_qspi_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, const struct spi_mem_op *op)
>> {
>> struct atmel_qspi *aq = spi_controller_get_devdata(mem->spi->master);
>> + void __iomem *base = aq->regs;
>
> Can we name this variable regs instead of base or even get rid of it
> and dereference aq->regs in the xxx_relaxed() calls (doesn't look like
> the lines would be over 80 chars even when doing that). With this
> addressed, you can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>

I chose to introduce the "base" variable when I have at least 2 dereferences in
a function, as an optimization. In exec_op() for example, there are 6
dereferences of aq->reqs. Why do you prefer keeping aq->regs?
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-02 09:45    [W:0.073 / U:2.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site