From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/7] davinci: eliminate use of IO_ADDRESS() on sysmod
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:00:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103151000.10350.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB593024C246CB1@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 07:00:44 Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> > * If you need to access sysmod in multiple places, a nicer
> > way would be to make the virtual address pointer static,
> > and export the accessor functions for it, rather than
> > having a global pointer.
>
> Seems like opinion is divided on this. A while back
> I submitted a patch with such an accessor function and
> was asked to do the opposite of what you are asking here.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/366501/
>
> It can be changed to the way you are asking, but would
> like to know what is more universally acceptable (if
> at all there is such a thing).
One difference is that the base address pointer here
can be treated as read-only by using an accessor function,
which was not possible for the case you cited. Doing
an inline function would also let you make the access
more type-safe, e.g forcing the right kind of readl/writel
variant and possibly locking if necessary.
I would also argue against Sergei's point for the other
patch -- the current solution is not better than the originally
suggested one IMHO. I believe a better way would have
been to pass the maximum frequency as an argument to
da850_register_cpufreq() in that case.
However, neither of these discussion is really important,
and we don't have a strict rule for doing it one way
or the other. Just use common sense and decide case-by-case,
as I said in the previous comment, you got the important
parts right.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@ti.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Hadli, Manjunath" <manjunath.hadli@ti.com>,
LMML <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>,
dlos <davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] davinci: eliminate use of IO_ADDRESS() on sysmod
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:00:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103151000.10350.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB593024C246CB1@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
On Tuesday 15 March 2011 07:00:44 Nori, Sekhar wrote:
> > * If you need to access sysmod in multiple places, a nicer
> > way would be to make the virtual address pointer static,
> > and export the accessor functions for it, rather than
> > having a global pointer.
>
> Seems like opinion is divided on this. A while back
> I submitted a patch with such an accessor function and
> was asked to do the opposite of what you are asking here.
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/366501/
>
> It can be changed to the way you are asking, but would
> like to know what is more universally acceptable (if
> at all there is such a thing).
One difference is that the base address pointer here
can be treated as read-only by using an accessor function,
which was not possible for the case you cited. Doing
an inline function would also let you make the access
more type-safe, e.g forcing the right kind of readl/writel
variant and possibly locking if necessary.
I would also argue against Sergei's point for the other
patch -- the current solution is not better than the originally
suggested one IMHO. I believe a better way would have
been to pass the maximum frequency as an argument to
da850_register_cpufreq() in that case.
However, neither of these discussion is really important,
and we don't have a strict rule for doing it one way
or the other. Just use common sense and decide case-by-case,
as I said in the previous comment, you got the important
parts right.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-15 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-14 13:55 [PATCH 2/7] davinci: eliminate use of IO_ADDRESS() on sysmod Manjunath Hadli
2011-03-14 13:55 ` Manjunath Hadli
2011-03-14 14:11 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-03-14 14:11 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-03-14 16:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-03-14 16:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-03-15 6:00 ` Nori, Sekhar
2011-03-15 6:00 ` Nori, Sekhar
2011-03-15 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2011-03-15 9:00 ` Arnd Bergmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201103151000.10350.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.