Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 May 2022 11:41:28 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] soc: mediatek: pwrap: Use readx_poll_timeout() instead of custom function | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 17/05/22 11:25, Matthias Brugger ha scritto: > > > On 16/05/2022 14:46, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >> Function pwrap_wait_for_state() is a function that polls an address >> through a helper function, but this is the very same operation that >> the readx_poll_timeout macro means to do. >> Convert all instances of calling pwrap_wait_for_state() to instead >> use the read_poll_timeout macro. >> >> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> >> Reviewed-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com> >> Tested-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@collabora.com> >> --- >> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c | 60 +++++++++++++++------------- >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c >> b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c >> index bf39a64f3ecc..54a5300ab72b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c >> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-pmic-wrap.c >> @@ -13,6 +13,9 @@ >> #include <linux/regmap.h> >> #include <linux/reset.h> >> +#define PWRAP_POLL_DELAY_US 10 >> +#define PWRAP_POLL_TIMEOUT_US 10000 >> + >> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_IORD_ARB_EN 0x4 >> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_WACS3_EN 0x10 >> #define PWRAP_MT8135_BRIDGE_INIT_DONE3 0x14 >> @@ -1241,27 +1244,14 @@ static bool pwrap_is_fsm_idle_and_sync_idle(struct >> pmic_wrapper *wrp) >> (val & PWRAP_STATE_SYNC_IDLE0); >> } >> -static int pwrap_wait_for_state(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, >> - bool (*fp)(struct pmic_wrapper *)) >> -{ >> - unsigned long timeout; >> - >> - timeout = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(10000); >> - >> - do { >> - if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) >> - return fp(wrp) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT; >> - if (fp(wrp)) >> - return 0; >> - } while (1); >> -} >> - >> static int pwrap_read16(struct pmic_wrapper *wrp, u32 adr, u32 *rdata) >> { >> + bool tmp; >> int ret; >> u32 val; >> - ret = pwrap_wait_for_state(wrp, pwrap_is_fsm_idle); >> + ret = readx_poll_timeout(pwrap_is_fsm_idle, wrp, tmp, tmp, > > hm, if we make the cond (tmp > 0) that would help to understand the code. At least > I had to think about it for a moment. But I leave it to you if you think it's worth > the effort. >
I would prefer size over readability in this case... if we do (tmp > 0), it would be incorrect to keep tmp as a `bool`, we would have to set it as an integer var, which is unnecessarily bigger (that's the reason why I wrote it like so!).
Another way to increase human readability would be to do (tmp == true), but it looks a bit weird to me, doesn't it? If you disagree about that looking weird, though, I can go with that one, perhaps!
Cheers, Angelo
| |