| Message ID | 20170721212436.26073-1-marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 3d7b1d1bc4474d2a85dc8d1a8001258dce56806a |
| Delegated to: | Jaehoon Chung |
| Headers | show |
Hi Marek, Very sorry for my late reply. I agree we should share the driver to avoid code duplication. I tested the series on my board and working. Basically, I'd say "go for it". A little minor comments below. 2017-07-22 6:24 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: > This patch prepares the driver to support controller(s) with registers > at locations shifted by constant. Pull out the readl()/writel() from > the driver into separate functions, where the adjustment of the register > offset can be easily contained. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> > --- > drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > index e272b14153..70090522bd 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > @@ -134,6 +134,17 @@ struct uniphier_sd_priv { > #define UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_DIV1024 BIT(2) /* divisor 1024 is available */ > }; > > +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) "const" is unneeded here. Also, could you use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg? > +{ > + return readl(priv->regbase + reg); > +} > + > +static void uniphier_sd_writel(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > + const u32 val, const u32 reg) Same here. Please drop "const". Please use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg It is OK to use u32 for val.
On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi, [...] >> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) > > "const" is unneeded here. Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. > Also, could you use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg? Why? >> +{ >> + return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >> +} >> + >> +static void uniphier_sd_writel(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, >> + const u32 val, const u32 reg) > > Same here. Please drop "const". > > Please use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg > > It is OK to use u32 for val. > > > >
Hi Marek, 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: > On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi Marek, > > Hi, > > [...] > >>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >> >> "const" is unneeded here. > > Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. Because "const" is useless here. The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious that there is no impact to the callers. Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not depends on how you implement the function. If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation will be as follows: static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) { if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); else return readl(priv->regbase + reg); } If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) { if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) reg <<= 1; return readl(priv->regbase + reg); } >> Also, could you use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg? > > Why? Because "unsigned int" or "int" is more natural. No reason to use a fixed width variable for the address offset.
On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi Masahiro, This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) > 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi, >> >> [...] >> >>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>> >>> "const" is unneeded here. >> >> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. > > > Because "const" is useless here. > > The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious > that there is no impact to the callers. > > > > Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not > depends on how you implement the function. > > > If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation > will be as follows: > > > > static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) > { > if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) > return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); > else > return readl(priv->regbase + reg); > } > > > > If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". > > static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) > { > if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) > reg <<= 1; > > return readl(priv->regbase + reg); > } My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally modifying the $reg inside the function. >>> Also, could you use "unsigned int" or "int" for reg? >> >> Why? > > > Because "unsigned int" or "int" is more natural. > > No reason to use a fixed width variable for the address offset. You're loosing the benefit of fixed width with using unsigned int though?
Hi. 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: > On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi Marek, > > Hi Masahiro, > > This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) > >> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>> >>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>> >>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >> >> >> Because "const" is useless here. >> >> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >> that there is no impact to the callers. >> >> >> >> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >> depends on how you implement the function. >> >> >> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >> will be as follows: >> >> >> >> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >> { >> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >> else >> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >> } >> >> >> >> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >> >> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >> { >> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >> reg <<= 1; >> >> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >> } > > My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally > modifying the $reg inside the function. No. The arguments of a functions are local variables. No impact on the outside of the scope of the function. If you accidentally modify a variable where it should not, it is a bug. Just fix it. If you want to wrestle more, please do it in LKML by adding around "const". For example, drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val) arch/arm/include/asm/io.h: static inline void __raw_writel(u32 val, volatile void __iomem *addr)
On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi. > > > 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi Masahiro, >> >> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >> >>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>> >>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>> >>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>> >>> >>> Because "const" is useless here. >>> >>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>> >>> >>> >>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>> depends on how you implement the function. >>> >>> >>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>> will be as follows: >>> >>> >>> >>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>> { >>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>> else >>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>> >>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>> { >>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>> reg <<= 1; >>> >>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>> } >> >> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >> modifying the $reg inside the function. > > > No. > The arguments of a functions are local variables. > No impact on the outside of the scope of the function. I'm not arguing about that. > If you accidentally modify a variable where it should not, > it is a bug. Just fix it. If it's const, compiler will warn the user he's doing something stupid. > If you want to wrestle more, please do it in LKML > by adding around "const". > > For example, > > drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: > int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val) > > arch/arm/include/asm/io.h: > static inline void __raw_writel(u32 val, volatile void __iomem *addr) Well, there were some cocci patches adding const recently :)
On 08/13/2017 01:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi. >> >> >> 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> Hi Masahiro, >>> >>> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >>> >>>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>> >>>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>>> >>>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>>> >>>> >>>> Because "const" is useless here. >>>> >>>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>>> depends on how you implement the function. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>>> will be as follows: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>> { >>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>>> else >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>>> >>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>>> { >>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>> reg <<= 1; >>>> >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>> } >>> >>> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >>> modifying the $reg inside the function. Is there any case about modifying the regs value in this function? Well..I think that it makes sense about both. (Masahiro and Marek opinion) But There is nothing wrong to prevent from accidentally. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung >> >> >> No. >> The arguments of a functions are local variables. >> No impact on the outside of the scope of the function. > > I'm not arguing about that. > >> If you accidentally modify a variable where it should not, >> it is a bug. Just fix it. > > If it's const, compiler will warn the user he's doing something stupid. > >> If you want to wrestle more, please do it in LKML >> by adding around "const". >> >> For example, >> >> drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: >> int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val) >> >> arch/arm/include/asm/io.h: >> static inline void __raw_writel(u32 val, volatile void __iomem *addr) > > Well, there were some cocci patches adding const recently :) >
Hi, On 07/22/2017 06:24 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > This patch prepares the driver to support controller(s) with registers > at locations shifted by constant. Pull out the readl()/writel() from > the driver into separate functions, where the adjustment of the register > offset can be easily contained. > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> > Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> > Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> I will wait for Masahiro's acked-tag or reviewing.. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > --- > drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > index e272b14153..70090522bd 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c > @@ -134,6 +134,17 @@ struct uniphier_sd_priv { > #define UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_DIV1024 BIT(2) /* divisor 1024 is available */ > }; > > +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) > +{ > + return readl(priv->regbase + reg); > +} > + > +static void uniphier_sd_writel(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > + const u32 val, const u32 reg) > +{ > + writel(val, priv->regbase + reg); > +} > + > static dma_addr_t __dma_map_single(void *ptr, size_t size, > enum dma_data_direction dir) > { > @@ -157,7 +168,7 @@ static void __dma_unmap_single(dma_addr_t addr, size_t size, > static int uniphier_sd_check_error(struct udevice *dev) > { > struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); > - u32 info2 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > + u32 info2 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > > if (info2 & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_ERR_RTO) { > /* > @@ -195,7 +206,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, unsigned int reg, > long wait = 1000000; > int ret; > > - while (!(readl(priv->regbase + reg) & flag)) { > + while (!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, reg) & flag)) { > if (wait-- < 0) { > dev_err(dev, "timeout\n"); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > @@ -227,14 +238,14 @@ static int uniphier_sd_pio_read_one_block(struct udevice *dev, u32 **pbuf, > * Clear the status flag _before_ read the buffer out because > * UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_BRE is edge-triggered, not level-triggered. > */ > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > > if (likely(IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)*pbuf, 4))) { > for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) > - *(*pbuf)++ = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > + *(*pbuf)++ = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > } else { > for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) > - put_unaligned(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF), > + put_unaligned(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF), > (*pbuf)++); > } > > @@ -253,15 +264,15 @@ static int uniphier_sd_pio_write_one_block(struct udevice *dev, > if (ret) > return ret; > > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > > if (likely(IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)*pbuf, 4))) { > for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) > - writel(*(*pbuf)++, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, *(*pbuf)++, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > } else { > for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) > - writel(get_unaligned((*pbuf)++), > - priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, get_unaligned((*pbuf)++), > + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); > } > > return 0; > @@ -292,22 +303,22 @@ static void uniphier_sd_dma_start(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > { > u32 tmp; > > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1); > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2); > > /* enable DMA */ > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE_DMA_EN; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > > - writel(dma_addr & U32_MAX, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_L); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, dma_addr & U32_MAX, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_L); > > /* suppress the warning "right shift count >= width of type" */ > dma_addr >>= min_t(int, 32, 8 * sizeof(dma_addr)); > > - writel(dma_addr & U32_MAX, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_H); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, dma_addr & U32_MAX, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_H); > > - writel(UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL_START, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL_START, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL); > } > > static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, > @@ -316,7 +327,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, > struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); > long wait = 1000000 + 10 * blocks; > > - while (!(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1) & flag)) { > + while (!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1) & flag)) { > if (wait-- < 0) { > dev_err(dev, "timeout during DMA\n"); > return -ETIMEDOUT; > @@ -325,7 +336,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, > udelay(10); > } > > - if (readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2)) { > + if (uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2)) { > dev_err(dev, "error during DMA\n"); > return -EIO; > } > @@ -343,7 +354,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_xfer(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_data *data) > u32 poll_flag, tmp; > int ret; > > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > > if (data->flags & MMC_DATA_READ) { > buf = data->dest; > @@ -357,7 +368,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_xfer(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_data *data) > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE_DIR_RD; > } > > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > > dma_addr = __dma_map_single(buf, len, dir); > > @@ -396,27 +407,27 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, > int ret; > u32 tmp; > > - if (readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2) & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_CBSY) { > + if (uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2) & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_CBSY) { > dev_err(dev, "command busy\n"); > return -EBUSY; > } > > /* clear all status flags */ > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1); > - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); > > /* disable DMA once */ > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE_DMA_EN; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); > > - writel(cmd->cmdarg, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_ARG); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, cmd->cmdarg, UNIPHIER_SD_ARG); > > tmp = cmd->cmdidx; > > if (data) { > - writel(data->blocksize, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SIZE); > - writel(data->blocks, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SECCNT); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, data->blocksize, UNIPHIER_SD_SIZE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, data->blocks, UNIPHIER_SD_SECCNT); > > /* Do not send CMD12 automatically */ > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_CMD_NOSTOP | UNIPHIER_SD_CMD_DATA; > @@ -457,7 +468,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, > > dev_dbg(dev, "sending CMD%d (SD_CMD=%08x, SD_ARG=%08x)\n", > cmd->cmdidx, tmp, cmd->cmdarg); > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CMD); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CMD); > > ret = uniphier_sd_wait_for_irq(dev, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1, > UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1_RSP); > @@ -465,10 +476,10 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, > return ret; > > if (cmd->resp_type & MMC_RSP_136) { > - u32 rsp_127_104 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP76); > - u32 rsp_103_72 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP54); > - u32 rsp_71_40 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP32); > - u32 rsp_39_8 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); > + u32 rsp_127_104 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP76); > + u32 rsp_103_72 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP54); > + u32 rsp_71_40 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP32); > + u32 rsp_39_8 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); > > cmd->response[0] = ((rsp_127_104 & 0x00ffffff) << 8) | > ((rsp_103_72 & 0xff000000) >> 24); > @@ -479,7 +490,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, > cmd->response[3] = (rsp_39_8 & 0xffffff) << 8; > } else { > /* bit 39-8 */ > - cmd->response[0] = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); > + cmd->response[0] = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); > } > > if (data) { > @@ -518,10 +529,10 @@ static int uniphier_sd_set_bus_width(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > return -EINVAL; > } > > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION_WIDTH_MASK; > tmp |= val; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); > > return 0; > } > @@ -531,12 +542,12 @@ static void uniphier_sd_set_ddr_mode(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > { > u32 tmp; > > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); > if (mmc->ddr_mode) > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE_DDR; > else > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE_DDR; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); > } > > static void uniphier_sd_set_clk_rate(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > @@ -573,21 +584,21 @@ static void uniphier_sd_set_clk_rate(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, > else > val = UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV1024; > > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > if (tmp & UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN && > (tmp & UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV_MASK) == val) > return; > > /* stop the clock before changing its rate to avoid a glitch signal */ > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV_MASK; > tmp |= val | UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_OFFEN; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); > > udelay(1000); > } > @@ -617,7 +628,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_get_cd(struct udevice *dev) > if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_NONREMOVABLE) > return 1; > > - return !!(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1) & > + return !!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1) & > UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1_CD); > } > > @@ -632,28 +643,28 @@ static void uniphier_sd_host_init(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv) > u32 tmp; > > /* soft reset of the host */ > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST_RSTX; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST_RSTX; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); > > /* FIXME: implement eMMC hw_reset */ > > - writel(UNIPHIER_SD_STOP_SEC, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_STOP); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_STOP_SEC, UNIPHIER_SD_STOP); > > /* > * Connected to 32bit AXI. > * This register dropped backward compatibility at version 0x10. > * Write an appropriate value depending on the IP version. > */ > - writel(priv->version >= 0x10 ? 0x00000101 : 0x00000000, > - priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_HOST_MODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, priv->version >= 0x10 ? 0x00000101 : 0x00000000, > + UNIPHIER_SD_HOST_MODE); > > if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_DMA_INTERNAL) { > - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE_ADDR_INC; > - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); > } > } > > @@ -724,7 +735,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_probe(struct udevice *dev) > NULL)) > priv->caps |= UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_NONREMOVABLE; > > - priv->version = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION) & > + priv->version = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION) & > UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION_IP; > dev_dbg(dev, "version %x\n", priv->version); > if (priv->version >= 0x10) { >
2017-08-13 1:55 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: > On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi. >> >> >> 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> Hi Masahiro, >>> >>> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >>> >>>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>> >>>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>>> >>>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>>> >>>> >>>> Because "const" is useless here. >>>> >>>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>>> depends on how you implement the function. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>>> will be as follows: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>> { >>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>>> else >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>>> >>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>>> { >>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>> reg <<= 1; >>>> >>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>> } >>> >>> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >>> modifying the $reg inside the function. >> >> >> No. >> The arguments of a functions are local variables. >> No impact on the outside of the scope of the function. > > I'm not arguing about that. > >> If you accidentally modify a variable where it should not, >> it is a bug. Just fix it. > > If it's const, compiler will warn the user he's doing something stupid. > >> If you want to wrestle more, please do it in LKML >> by adding around "const". >> >> For example, >> >> drivers/base/regmap/regmap.c: >> int regmap_write(struct regmap *map, unsigned int reg, unsigned int val) >> >> arch/arm/include/asm/io.h: >> static inline void __raw_writel(u32 val, volatile void __iomem *addr) > > Well, there were some cocci patches adding const recently :) > Do you mean cocci scripts in scripts/coccinelle ? I checked linux-next, but I could not find it.
2017-08-17 15:39 GMT+09:00 Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>: > On 08/13/2017 01:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> >>> 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>> >>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>> >>>> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >>>> >>>>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because "const" is useless here. >>>>> >>>>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>>>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>>>> depends on how you implement the function. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>>>> will be as follows: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>> { >>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>>>> else >>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>>>> >>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>>>> { >>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>> reg <<= 1; >>>>> >>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>> } >>>> >>>> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >>>> modifying the $reg inside the function. > > Is there any case about modifying the regs value in this function? > Well..I think that it makes sense about both. (Masahiro and Marek opinion) > > But There is nothing wrong to prevent from accidentally. In my opinion, const is useful for pointer dereference, but unneeded in this case. I believe it is the taste from what I saw from Linux code. So, I follow it.
On 08/17/2017 09:01 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2017-08-17 15:39 GMT+09:00 Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>: >> On 08/13/2017 01:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>> Hi. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>>> >>>>> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >>>>> >>>>>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because "const" is useless here. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>>>>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>>>>> depends on how you implement the function. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>>>>> will be as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>> { >>>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>>>>> else >>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>>>>> >>>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>>>>> { >>>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>>> reg <<= 1; >>>>>> >>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >>>>> modifying the $reg inside the function. >> >> Is there any case about modifying the regs value in this function? >> Well..I think that it makes sense about both. (Masahiro and Marek opinion) >> >> But There is nothing wrong to prevent from accidentally. > > > In my opinion, const is useful for pointer dereference, > but unneeded in this case. > > I believe it is the taste > from what I saw from Linux code. So, I follow it. I don't care either way, I was just wrestling Masahiro for the sake of it (you know the thing about wrestling engineers). There's a V2, so feel free to collect that if Masahiro can give me an AB/RB.
Hi Marek, 2017-08-17 20:56 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: > On 08/17/2017 09:01 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> 2017-08-17 15:39 GMT+09:00 Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>: >>> On 08/13/2017 01:55 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 08/10/2017 09:49 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>> Hi. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017-08-07 17:30 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>>> On 08/07/2017 04:30 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>>>> >>>>>> This is gonna be a great discussion, let's wrestle about consts and ints :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-08-06 4:23 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>> On 08/03/2017 02:36 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "const" is unneeded here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? The function should not modify reg , so it is const. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because "const" is useless here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The "reg" is not a pointer, so it is obvious >>>>>>> that there is no impact to the callers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moreover, whether "reg" is constant or not >>>>>>> depends on how you implement the function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you force "const" to the argument, the only choice for the implementation >>>>>>> will be as follows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + (reg << 1)); >>>>>>> else >>>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to implement the function as follows, you need to drop "const". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, u32 reg) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_64BIT) >>>>>>> reg <<= 1; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> return readl(priv->regbase + reg); >>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> My argument would be that the const prevents you from accidentally >>>>>> modifying the $reg inside the function. >>> >>> Is there any case about modifying the regs value in this function? >>> Well..I think that it makes sense about both. (Masahiro and Marek opinion) >>> >>> But There is nothing wrong to prevent from accidentally. >> >> >> In my opinion, const is useful for pointer dereference, >> but unneeded in this case. >> >> I believe it is the taste >> from what I saw from Linux code. So, I follow it. > > I don't care either way, I was just wrestling Masahiro for the sake of > it (you know the thing about wrestling engineers). There's a V2, so feel > free to collect that if Masahiro can give me an AB/RB. I still see const in 1/5 and 3/5. Please remove them if my AB/RB is needed.
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c index e272b14153..70090522bd 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c @@ -134,6 +134,17 @@ struct uniphier_sd_priv { #define UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_DIV1024 BIT(2) /* divisor 1024 is available */ }; +static u32 uniphier_sd_readl(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, const u32 reg) +{ + return readl(priv->regbase + reg); +} + +static void uniphier_sd_writel(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, + const u32 val, const u32 reg) +{ + writel(val, priv->regbase + reg); +} + static dma_addr_t __dma_map_single(void *ptr, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction dir) { @@ -157,7 +168,7 @@ static void __dma_unmap_single(dma_addr_t addr, size_t size, static int uniphier_sd_check_error(struct udevice *dev) { struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); - u32 info2 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); + u32 info2 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); if (info2 & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_ERR_RTO) { /* @@ -195,7 +206,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, unsigned int reg, long wait = 1000000; int ret; - while (!(readl(priv->regbase + reg) & flag)) { + while (!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, reg) & flag)) { if (wait-- < 0) { dev_err(dev, "timeout\n"); return -ETIMEDOUT; @@ -227,14 +238,14 @@ static int uniphier_sd_pio_read_one_block(struct udevice *dev, u32 **pbuf, * Clear the status flag _before_ read the buffer out because * UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_BRE is edge-triggered, not level-triggered. */ - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); if (likely(IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)*pbuf, 4))) { for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) - *(*pbuf)++ = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); + *(*pbuf)++ = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); } else { for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) - put_unaligned(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF), + put_unaligned(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF), (*pbuf)++); } @@ -253,15 +264,15 @@ static int uniphier_sd_pio_write_one_block(struct udevice *dev, if (ret) return ret; - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); if (likely(IS_ALIGNED((unsigned long)*pbuf, 4))) { for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) - writel(*(*pbuf)++, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, *(*pbuf)++, UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); } else { for (i = 0; i < blocksize / 4; i++) - writel(get_unaligned((*pbuf)++), - priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, get_unaligned((*pbuf)++), + UNIPHIER_SD_BUF); } return 0; @@ -292,22 +303,22 @@ static void uniphier_sd_dma_start(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, { u32 tmp; - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1); - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2); /* enable DMA */ - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE_DMA_EN; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); - writel(dma_addr & U32_MAX, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_L); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, dma_addr & U32_MAX, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_L); /* suppress the warning "right shift count >= width of type" */ dma_addr >>= min_t(int, 32, 8 * sizeof(dma_addr)); - writel(dma_addr & U32_MAX, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_H); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, dma_addr & U32_MAX, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_ADDR_H); - writel(UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL_START, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL_START, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_CTL); } static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, @@ -316,7 +327,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); long wait = 1000000 + 10 * blocks; - while (!(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1) & flag)) { + while (!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO1) & flag)) { if (wait-- < 0) { dev_err(dev, "timeout during DMA\n"); return -ETIMEDOUT; @@ -325,7 +336,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_wait_for_irq(struct udevice *dev, u32 flag, udelay(10); } - if (readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2)) { + if (uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_INFO2)) { dev_err(dev, "error during DMA\n"); return -EIO; } @@ -343,7 +354,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_xfer(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_data *data) u32 poll_flag, tmp; int ret; - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); if (data->flags & MMC_DATA_READ) { buf = data->dest; @@ -357,7 +368,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_dma_xfer(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_data *data) tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE_DIR_RD; } - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); dma_addr = __dma_map_single(buf, len, dir); @@ -396,27 +407,27 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, int ret; u32 tmp; - if (readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2) & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_CBSY) { + if (uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2) & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2_CBSY) { dev_err(dev, "command busy\n"); return -EBUSY; } /* clear all status flags */ - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1); - writel(0, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, 0, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO2); /* disable DMA once */ - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE_DMA_EN; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_EXTMODE); - writel(cmd->cmdarg, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_ARG); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, cmd->cmdarg, UNIPHIER_SD_ARG); tmp = cmd->cmdidx; if (data) { - writel(data->blocksize, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SIZE); - writel(data->blocks, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SECCNT); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, data->blocksize, UNIPHIER_SD_SIZE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, data->blocks, UNIPHIER_SD_SECCNT); /* Do not send CMD12 automatically */ tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_CMD_NOSTOP | UNIPHIER_SD_CMD_DATA; @@ -457,7 +468,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, dev_dbg(dev, "sending CMD%d (SD_CMD=%08x, SD_ARG=%08x)\n", cmd->cmdidx, tmp, cmd->cmdarg); - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CMD); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CMD); ret = uniphier_sd_wait_for_irq(dev, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1_RSP); @@ -465,10 +476,10 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, return ret; if (cmd->resp_type & MMC_RSP_136) { - u32 rsp_127_104 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP76); - u32 rsp_103_72 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP54); - u32 rsp_71_40 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP32); - u32 rsp_39_8 = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); + u32 rsp_127_104 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP76); + u32 rsp_103_72 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP54); + u32 rsp_71_40 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP32); + u32 rsp_39_8 = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); cmd->response[0] = ((rsp_127_104 & 0x00ffffff) << 8) | ((rsp_103_72 & 0xff000000) >> 24); @@ -479,7 +490,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_send_cmd(struct udevice *dev, struct mmc_cmd *cmd, cmd->response[3] = (rsp_39_8 & 0xffffff) << 8; } else { /* bit 39-8 */ - cmd->response[0] = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); + cmd->response[0] = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_RSP10); } if (data) { @@ -518,10 +529,10 @@ static int uniphier_sd_set_bus_width(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, return -EINVAL; } - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION_WIDTH_MASK; tmp |= val; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_OPTION); return 0; } @@ -531,12 +542,12 @@ static void uniphier_sd_set_ddr_mode(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, { u32 tmp; - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); if (mmc->ddr_mode) tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE_DDR; else tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE_DDR; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_IF_MODE); } static void uniphier_sd_set_clk_rate(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, @@ -573,21 +584,21 @@ static void uniphier_sd_set_clk_rate(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv, else val = UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV1024; - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); if (tmp & UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN && (tmp & UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV_MASK) == val) return; /* stop the clock before changing its rate to avoid a glitch signal */ tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_DIV_MASK; tmp |= val | UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_OFFEN; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL_SCLKEN; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_CLKCTL); udelay(1000); } @@ -617,7 +628,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_get_cd(struct udevice *dev) if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_NONREMOVABLE) return 1; - return !!(readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1) & + return !!(uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1) & UNIPHIER_SD_INFO1_CD); } @@ -632,28 +643,28 @@ static void uniphier_sd_host_init(struct uniphier_sd_priv *priv) u32 tmp; /* soft reset of the host */ - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); tmp &= ~UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST_RSTX; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST_RSTX; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_SOFT_RST); /* FIXME: implement eMMC hw_reset */ - writel(UNIPHIER_SD_STOP_SEC, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_STOP); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_STOP_SEC, UNIPHIER_SD_STOP); /* * Connected to 32bit AXI. * This register dropped backward compatibility at version 0x10. * Write an appropriate value depending on the IP version. */ - writel(priv->version >= 0x10 ? 0x00000101 : 0x00000000, - priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_HOST_MODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, priv->version >= 0x10 ? 0x00000101 : 0x00000000, + UNIPHIER_SD_HOST_MODE); if (priv->caps & UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_DMA_INTERNAL) { - tmp = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); + tmp = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); tmp |= UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE_ADDR_INC; - writel(tmp, priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); + uniphier_sd_writel(priv, tmp, UNIPHIER_SD_DMA_MODE); } } @@ -724,7 +735,7 @@ static int uniphier_sd_probe(struct udevice *dev) NULL)) priv->caps |= UNIPHIER_SD_CAP_NONREMOVABLE; - priv->version = readl(priv->regbase + UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION) & + priv->version = uniphier_sd_readl(priv, UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION) & UNIPHIER_SD_VERSION_IP; dev_dbg(dev, "version %x\n", priv->version); if (priv->version >= 0x10) {
This patch prepares the driver to support controller(s) with registers at locations shifted by constant. Pull out the readl()/writel() from the driver into separate functions, where the adjustment of the register offset can be easily contained. Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com> Cc: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> Cc: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com> --- drivers/mmc/uniphier-sd.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)