All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>,
	amelie.delaunay@st.com, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
	Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] gpio: stmpe: Add STMPE1600 support
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:17:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5719D00F.3020202@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaLhgR8PcKuR1svU=iAEUq=-USN1zktvdor128kEO=G9A@mail.gmail.com>



On 04/20/2016 04:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:18 PM,  <patrice.chotard@st.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>>
>> The particularities of this variant are:
>> - GPIO_XXX_LSB and GPIO_XXX_MSB memory locations are inverted compared
>>    to other variants.
>> - There is no Edge detection, Rising Edge and Falling Edge registers.
>> - IRQ flags are cleared when read, no need to write in Status register.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@st.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>> -       u8 reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
>> +       u8 reg;
>>          u8 mask = 1 << (offset % 8);
>>          int ret;
>>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> This construct is a bit hard to grasp.
>
> Can we think of something more intuitive? Maybe using more
> code lines but easier to understand.
>
> Subtracting the offset is just totally unintuitive in the first place,
> the STMPE1600 arrangement is much more intuitive.
>
> I would prefer if we address the LSB+MSB register explicitly
> instead of adding or subtracting 1 to the LSB register to get
> to the MSB register.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] + j,
>> +                                               new);
>> +                       else
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] - j,
>> +                                               new);
> This is also unintuitively backwards.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_LSB];
>> +       else
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_MSB];
> And this kind of points at the problem.
>
> Can we write this in some way that make it super-clear which register
> we're using and why?

Ok i will rework all these points

Thanks

Patrice

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: patrice.chotard@st.com (Patrice Chotard)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/8] gpio: stmpe: Add STMPE1600 support
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:17:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5719D00F.3020202@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaLhgR8PcKuR1svU=iAEUq=-USN1zktvdor128kEO=G9A@mail.gmail.com>



On 04/20/2016 04:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:18 PM,  <patrice.chotard@st.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>>
>> The particularities of this variant are:
>> - GPIO_XXX_LSB and GPIO_XXX_MSB memory locations are inverted compared
>>    to other variants.
>> - There is no Edge detection, Rising Edge and Falling Edge registers.
>> - IRQ flags are cleared when read, no need to write in Status register.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@st.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>> -       u8 reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
>> +       u8 reg;
>>          u8 mask = 1 << (offset % 8);
>>          int ret;
>>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> This construct is a bit hard to grasp.
>
> Can we think of something more intuitive? Maybe using more
> code lines but easier to understand.
>
> Subtracting the offset is just totally unintuitive in the first place,
> the STMPE1600 arrangement is much more intuitive.
>
> I would prefer if we address the LSB+MSB register explicitly
> instead of adding or subtracting 1 to the LSB register to get
> to the MSB register.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] + j,
>> +                                               new);
>> +                       else
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] - j,
>> +                                               new);
> This is also unintuitively backwards.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_LSB];
>> +       else
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_MSB];
> And this kind of points at the problem.
>
> Can we write this in some way that make it super-clear which register
> we're using and why?

Ok i will rework all these points

Thanks

Patrice

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
	"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>,
	<amelie.delaunay@st.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
	Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] gpio: stmpe: Add STMPE1600 support
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:17:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5719D00F.3020202@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaLhgR8PcKuR1svU=iAEUq=-USN1zktvdor128kEO=G9A@mail.gmail.com>



On 04/20/2016 04:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:18 PM,  <patrice.chotard@st.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>>
>> The particularities of this variant are:
>> - GPIO_XXX_LSB and GPIO_XXX_MSB memory locations are inverted compared
>>    to other variants.
>> - There is no Edge detection, Rising Edge and Falling Edge registers.
>> - IRQ flags are cleared when read, no need to write in Status register.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@st.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>> -       u8 reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
>> +       u8 reg;
>>          u8 mask = 1 << (offset % 8);
>>          int ret;
>>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPMR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> This construct is a bit hard to grasp.
>
> Can we think of something more intuitive? Maybe using more
> code lines but easier to understand.
>
> Subtracting the offset is just totally unintuitive in the first place,
> the STMPE1600 arrangement is much more intuitive.
>
> I would prefer if we address the LSB+MSB register explicitly
> instead of adding or subtracting 1 to the LSB register to get
> to the MSB register.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[which] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] + j,
>> +                                               new);
>> +                       else
>> +                               stmpe_reg_write(stmpe,
>> +                                               stmpe->regs[regmap[i]] - j,
>> +                                               new);
> This is also unintuitively backwards.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] + (offset / 8);
>> +       else
>> +               dir_reg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_GPDR_LSB] - (offset / 8);
> Same.
>
>> +       if (stmpe->partnum == STMPE1600)
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_LSB];
>> +       else
>> +               statmsbreg = stmpe->regs[STMPE_IDX_ISGPIOR_MSB];
> And this kind of points at the problem.
>
> Can we write this in some way that make it super-clear which register
> we're using and why?

Ok i will rework all these points

Thanks

Patrice

>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-22  7:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-19 12:18 [PATCH 0/8] STMPE fixes/rework and add STMPE1600 support patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18 ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18 ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 1/8] mfd: stmpe: Add STMPE_IDX_SYS_CTRL/2 enum patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:32   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:32     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-26  8:19   ` Lee Jones
2016-04-26  8:19     ` Lee Jones
2016-04-26  8:19     ` Lee Jones
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 2/8] mfd: stmpe: Add reset support for all STMPE variant patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:34   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:34     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-26  8:18   ` Lee Jones
2016-04-26  8:18     ` Lee Jones
2016-04-26  8:18     ` Lee Jones
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 3/8] gpio: stmpe: fix edge and rising/falling edge detection patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-19 12:38   ` kbuild test robot
2016-04-19 12:38     ` kbuild test robot
2016-04-19 12:38     ` kbuild test robot
2016-04-20 14:37   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:37     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-21 13:48     ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-21 13:48       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-21 13:48       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 4/8] gpio: stmpe: write int status register only when needed patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:38   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:38     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 5/8] Documentation: dt: add stmpe1600 compatible string to stmpe mfd patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:39   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:39     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 6/8] mfd: Add STMPE1600 support patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:43   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:43     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-21 13:51     ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-21 13:51       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-21 13:51       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 7/8] gpio: stmpe: " patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:53   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:53     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-22  7:17     ` Patrice Chotard [this message]
2016-04-22  7:17       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-22  7:17       ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-19 12:18 ` [PATCH 8/8] gpio: stmpe: configure GPIO as output by default patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard
2016-04-19 12:18   ` patrice.chotard at st.com
2016-04-20 14:56   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:56     ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-19 12:41 ` [PATCH 0/8] STMPE fixes/rework and add STMPE1600 support Thierry Reding
2016-04-19 12:41   ` Thierry Reding
2016-04-20 16:15   ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-20 16:15     ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-20 16:15     ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-19 15:53 ` Stephen Warren
2016-04-19 15:53   ` Stephen Warren
2016-04-20  7:40   ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-20  7:40     ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-20  7:40     ` Patrice Chotard
2016-04-20 16:02     ` Stephen Warren
2016-04-20 16:02       ` Stephen Warren
2016-04-21  2:39       ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-21  2:39         ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-21  2:39         ` Marcel Ziswiler
2016-04-20 14:25   ` Linus Walleij
2016-04-20 14:25     ` Linus Walleij

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=5719D00F.3020202@st.com \
    --to=patrice.chotard@st.com \
    --cc=amelie.delaunay@st.com \
    --cc=dinguyen@opensource.altera.com \
    --cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=maxime.coquelin@st.com \
    --cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
    --cc=shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    --cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
    --cc=vireshk@kernel.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.