From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com>
Cc: lpieralisi@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
heiko@sntech.de, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org,
robh@kernel.org, jingoohan1@gmail.com, shawn.lin@rock-chips.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Unify link status checks with FIELD_GET
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:24:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAeKcEfyDS1ImynJ@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7716b76f-be79-4ed1-b8d2-29258cb250ab@163.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:50:50PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/4/22 19:39, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:28:30PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > > Link-up detection manually checked PCIE_LINKUP bits across RC/EP modes,
> > > leading to code duplication. Centralize the logic using FIELD_GET. This
> > > removes redundancy and abstracts hardware-specific bit masking, ensuring
> > > consistent link state handling.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > index cdc8afc6cfc1..2b26060af5c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > @@ -196,10 +196,7 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > > struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = to_rockchip_pcie(pci);
> > > u32 val = rockchip_pcie_get_ltssm(rockchip);
> > > - if ((val & PCIE_LINKUP) == PCIE_LINKUP)
> > > - return 1;
> > > -
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return FIELD_GET(PCIE_LINKUP_MASK, val) == 3;
> >
> > While I like the idea of your patch, here you are replacing something that
> > is easy to read (PCIE_LINKUP) with a magic value, which IMO is a step in
> > the wrong direction.
> >
>
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Thank you very much for your reply. How about I add another macro
> definition?
>
> #define PCIE_LINKUP 3
Yes, adding another macro for it is what I meant.
Kind regards,
Niklas
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>
To: Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com>
Cc: lpieralisi@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
heiko@sntech.de, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org,
robh@kernel.org, jingoohan1@gmail.com, shawn.lin@rock-chips.com,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Unify link status checks with FIELD_GET
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 14:24:16 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAeKcEfyDS1ImynJ@ryzen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7716b76f-be79-4ed1-b8d2-29258cb250ab@163.com>
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:50:50PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/4/22 19:39, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 07:28:30PM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > > Link-up detection manually checked PCIE_LINKUP bits across RC/EP modes,
> > > leading to code duplication. Centralize the logic using FIELD_GET. This
> > > removes redundancy and abstracts hardware-specific bit masking, ensuring
> > > consistent link state handling.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > index cdc8afc6cfc1..2b26060af5c2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c
> > > @@ -196,10 +196,7 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_link_up(struct dw_pcie *pci)
> > > struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = to_rockchip_pcie(pci);
> > > u32 val = rockchip_pcie_get_ltssm(rockchip);
> > > - if ((val & PCIE_LINKUP) == PCIE_LINKUP)
> > > - return 1;
> > > -
> > > - return 0;
> > > + return FIELD_GET(PCIE_LINKUP_MASK, val) == 3;
> >
> > While I like the idea of your patch, here you are replacing something that
> > is easy to read (PCIE_LINKUP) with a magic value, which IMO is a step in
> > the wrong direction.
> >
>
> Hi Niklas,
>
> Thank you very much for your reply. How about I add another macro
> definition?
>
> #define PCIE_LINKUP 3
Yes, adding another macro for it is what I meant.
Kind regards,
Niklas
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-22 13:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-22 11:28 [PATCH 0/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Reorganize register and bitfield definitions Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Remove unused PCIE_CLIENT_GENERAL_DEBUG Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:35 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:35 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:28 ` [PATCH 2/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Reorganize register and bitfield definitions Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:47 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:47 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:51 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:51 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 12:30 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 12:30 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 12:39 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 12:39 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 16:03 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 16:03 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` [PATCH 3/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Unify link status checks with FIELD_GET Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:28 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:39 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 11:50 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:50 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 12:24 ` Niklas Cassel [this message]
2025-04-22 12:24 ` Niklas Cassel
2025-04-22 12:29 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 12:29 ` Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:35 ` [PATCH 0/3] PCI: dw-rockchip: Reorganize register and bitfield definitions Hans Zhang
2025-04-22 11:35 ` Hans Zhang
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=aAeKcEfyDS1ImynJ@ryzen \
--to=cassel@kernel.org \
--cc=18255117159@163.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=jingoohan1@gmail.com \
--cc=kw@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=shawn.lin@rock-chips.com \
/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.