Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:58:51 +0200 | From | Miquel Raynal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Pass device instead of rpcif to rpcif_*() |
| |
Hi Krzysztof,
krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org wrote on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:46:51 +0200:
> On 30/06/2022 09:25, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > geert+renesas@glider.be wrote on Mon, 27 Jun 2022 17:31:13 +0200: > > > >> Most rpcif_*() API functions do not need access to any other fields in > >> the rpcif structure than the device pointer. Simplify dependencies by > >> passing the device pointer instead. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > >> --- > >> drivers/memory/renesas-rpc-if.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > >> drivers/mtd/hyperbus/rpc-if.c | 18 +++++++++--------- > > > > [...] > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/hyperbus/rpc-if.c b/drivers/mtd/hyperbus/rpc-if.c > >> index d00d302434030b20..41734e337ac00e40 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/hyperbus/rpc-if.c > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/hyperbus/rpc-if.c > >> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static void rpcif_hb_prepare_read(struct rpcif *rpc, void *to, > >> op.data.nbytes = len; > >> op.data.buf.in = to; > >> > >> - rpcif_prepare(rpc, &op, NULL, NULL); > >> + rpcif_prepare(rpc->dev, &op, NULL, NULL); > >> } > >> > >> static void rpcif_hb_prepare_write(struct rpcif *rpc, unsigned long to, > >> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void rpcif_hb_prepare_write(struct rpcif *rpc, unsigned long to, > >> op.data.nbytes = len; > >> op.data.buf.out = from; > >> > >> - rpcif_prepare(rpc, &op, NULL, NULL); > >> + rpcif_prepare(rpc->dev, &op, NULL, NULL); > >> } > >> > >> static u16 rpcif_hb_read16(struct hyperbus_device *hbdev, unsigned long addr) > >> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ static u16 rpcif_hb_read16(struct hyperbus_device *hbdev, unsigned long addr) > >> > >> rpcif_hb_prepare_read(&hyperbus->rpc, &data, addr, 2); > >> > >> - rpcif_manual_xfer(&hyperbus->rpc); > >> + rpcif_manual_xfer(hyperbus->rpc.dev); > >> > >> return data.x[0]; > >> } > >> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ static void rpcif_hb_write16(struct hyperbus_device *hbdev, unsigned long addr, > >> > >> rpcif_hb_prepare_write(&hyperbus->rpc, addr, &data, 2); > >> > >> - rpcif_manual_xfer(&hyperbus->rpc); > >> + rpcif_manual_xfer(hyperbus->rpc.dev); > >> } > >> > >> static void rpcif_hb_copy_from(struct hyperbus_device *hbdev, void *to, > >> @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static void rpcif_hb_copy_from(struct hyperbus_device *hbdev, void *to, > >> > >> rpcif_hb_prepare_read(&hyperbus->rpc, to, from, len); > >> > >> - rpcif_dirmap_read(&hyperbus->rpc, from, len, to); > >> + rpcif_dirmap_read(hyperbus->rpc.dev, from, len, to); > >> } > >> > >> static const struct hyperbus_ops rpcif_hb_ops = { > >> @@ -130,9 +130,9 @@ static int rpcif_hb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> > >> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, hyperbus); > >> > >> - rpcif_enable_rpm(&hyperbus->rpc); > >> + rpcif_enable_rpm(hyperbus->rpc.dev); > >> > >> - error = rpcif_hw_init(&hyperbus->rpc, true); > >> + error = rpcif_hw_init(hyperbus->rpc.dev, true); > >> if (error) > >> goto out_disable_rpm; > >> > >> @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ static int rpcif_hb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> return 0; > >> > >> out_disable_rpm: > >> - rpcif_disable_rpm(&hyperbus->rpc); > >> + rpcif_disable_rpm(hyperbus->rpc.dev); > >> return error; > >> } > > > > This will only apply on top of mtd/next, because that > > rpcif_disable_rpm() balance call was very recently contributed by Geert: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/f3070e1af480cb252ae183d479a593dbbf947685.1655457790.git.geert+renesas@glider.be/ > > > > So we need to first share an immutable tag on the current mtd/next > > branch. Richard, that is my vacation gift for you :) > > I don't want entire mtd/next. I could take Renesas hyperbus specific > commits.
I applied this patch a week ago and did not remembered there was a possibly conflicting series aside.
> Another solution is me to rebase on some rcX, if that commit > was sent as fix for current cycle.
Unfortunately, no.
> The third option is to simply resolve a conflict - which should looks > pretty easy and compile-testable. In that case the commit should be > rebased on my v5.19-rc1.
I believe it should work. As this is mostly a cleanup, you can also wait 5.20-rc1.
Thanks, Miquèl
| |