Hi Ben,
On Wednesday 14 March 2012 10:05:40 Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 09:19:22 Bhupesh SHARMA wrote:
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c
> > > > > @@ -164,7 +164,14 @@ static char *abort_sources[] = {
> > > > >
> > > > > u32 dw_readl(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, int offset)
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > - u32 value = readl(dev->base + offset);
> > > > > + u32 value;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (dev->access_16bit) {
> > > > > + value = readw(dev->base + offset) |
> > > > > + (readw(dev->base + offset + 2) << 16);
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + value = readl(dev->base + offset);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > We can do away with '{' parenthesis as these are single line
> > > > of code inside both the 'if-else' blocks.
> > >
> > > It's not a single-line statement. The first block extends spans 2
> > > lines. At
> > > least that how I interpret this CodingStyle recommendation.
> >
> > ???
> > Breaking a single line of code into two for readability does not
> > make them two separate executable statements.
> >
> > As per CodingStyle recommendation:
> > Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.
> >
> > if (condition)
> >
> > action();
> >
> > So, please modify your patch as braces here waste precious screen
> > space and reduce readability.
>
> I have no strong preferences here. I it helps getting this patch accepted,
> I'll remove those braces.
>
> > > > > if (dev->swab)
> > > > >
> > > > > return swab32(value);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -177,7 +184,12 @@ void dw_writel(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, u32 b,
> > >
> > > int
> > >
> > > > > offset)
> > > > >
> > > > > if (dev->swab)
> > > > >
> > > > > b = swab32(b);
> > > > >
> > > > > - writel(b, dev->base + offset);
> > > > > + if (dev->access_16bit) {
> > > > > + writew((u16)b, dev->base + offset);
> > > > > + writew((u16)(b >> 16), dev->base + offset + 2);
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + writel(b, dev->base + offset);
> > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static u32
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -258,6 +270,12 @@ int i2c_dw_init(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev)
> > > > >
> > > > > reg = DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE;
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Configure register access mode 16bit */
> > > > > + if (reg == (DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE & 0x0000ffff)) {
> > > > > + dev->access_16bit = 1;
> > > >
> > > > Can we use a suitable macro for 0x0000ffff?
> > >
> > > Hmmm. Wouldn't that make it more complex? 0x0000ffff is easy to
> > > understand. A
> > > marco would "hide" this value. I would prefer to keep the value.
> >
> > Using a macro doesn't make things 'more complex', but more readable.
> > Magic numbers must be avoided at all cost. A better
> > named MACRO is always better (for anyone else reading the code)
> > than a magic number like 0x0000ffff.
>
> I really don't share your point of view here. I feel that in this case, the
> number is much better readable than a macro.
>
> > > > Also, if dev->access_16bit is bool we can simply set:
> > > > dev->access_16bit = true;
> > > >
> > > > more on that below...
> > > >
> > > > > + reg = DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > if (reg != DW_IC_COMP_TYPE_VALUE) {
> > > > >
> > > > > dev_err(dev->dev, "Unknown Synopsys component type: "
> > > > >
> > > > > "0x%08x\n", reg);
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > > > > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > > > > index 02d1a2d..f5af101 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
> > > > > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ struct dw_i2c_dev {
> > > > >
> > > > > u32 abort_source;
> > > > > int irq;
> > > > > int swab;
> > > > >
> > > > > + int access_16bit;
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > int?? Probably we are better off with making this as bool.
> > >
> > > I'm not a big fan of bool's. But I have no strong preference here. My
> > > reasoning here was consistency. As we already have "int swab" for a
> > > similar
> > > issue.
> >
> > If we have not done it earlier, doesn't mean that we repeat the same
> > mistake again. There is no reason to take access_16bit as an int when a
> > bool will suffice.
> >
> > This wastes storage and on some platforms (which have real crunch of
> > memory), such saving is critical.
>
> Again, I have no big problem changing this to bool.
>
> > > So basically, I would prefer to not make the changes you suggested. But
> > > in the
> > > end its the decision of the maintainer(s).
> >
> > Linux is a collaborative world and patches can be reviewed by
> > literally anyone :)
>
> Sure.
>
> > I am sure the maintainer(s) will find my comments worth adding in your
> > patch..
>
> Might be. But who is the maintainer of this driver?
Ben, will you accept this patch as is, or should I make some of the suggested
changes (braces, int->bool) and send a patch-v2 out?
Thanks,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
