From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] ASoC: SOF: Add DSP HW abstraction
 operations
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 17:45:50 -0600
Message-ID: <63035c82-9cad-2866-4974-0e2d495c77b5@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181211212318.28644-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <20181211212318.28644-9-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
 <20181211231637.GN10650@smile.fi.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181211231637.GN10650@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/options/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>
List-Help: <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel>,
 <mailto:alsa-devel-request@alsa-project.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, tiwai@suse.de, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>, liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, vkoul@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>, sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org
List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org


On 12/11/18 5:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 03:23:12PM -0600, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>> From: Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Add operation pointers that can be called by core to control a wide
>> variety of DSP targets. The DSP HW drivers will fill in these
>> operations.
>> +int snd_sof_pci_update_bits_unlocked(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, u32 offset,
>> +				     u32 mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> +	bool change;
>> +	unsigned int old, new;
>> +	u32 ret = ~0; /* explicit init to remove uninitialized use warnings */
>> +
>> +	pci_read_config_dword(sdev->pci, offset, &ret);
>> +	dev_dbg(sdev->dev, "Debug PCIR: %8.8x at  %8.8x\n",
>> +		pci_read_config_dword(sdev->pci, offset, &ret), offset);
>> +
>> +	old = ret;
>> +	new = (old & (~mask)) | (value & mask);
>> +
>> +	change = (old != new);
>> +	if (change) {
>> +		pci_write_config_dword(sdev->pci, offset, new);
>> +		dev_dbg(sdev->dev, "Debug PCIW: %8.8x at  %8.8x\n", value,
>> +			offset);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return change;
> What about dropping change completely?
>
> if (old == new)
> 	return false;
>
> ...
> return true;
ok for all cases
>
>
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_sof_pci_update_bits_unlocked);
>> +int snd_sof_dsp_update_bits_unlocked(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, u32 bar,
>> +				     u32 offset, u32 mask, u32 value)
>> +{
>> +	bool change;
>> +	unsigned int old, new;
>> +	u32 ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = snd_sof_dsp_read(sdev, bar, offset);
>> +
>> +	old = ret;
>> +	new = (old & (~mask)) | (value & mask);
>> +
>> +	change = (old != new);
>> +	if (change)
>> +		snd_sof_dsp_write(sdev, bar, offset, new);
>> +
>> +	return change;
> Ditto.
> Everywhere in similar places.
>
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_sof_dsp_update_bits_unlocked);
>> +	/* check if set state successful */
>> +	for (time = 5; time > 0; time--) {
>> +		if ((snd_sof_dsp_read(sdev, bar, offset) & mask) == target)
>> +			break;
>> +		msleep(20);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (!time) {
>> +		/* sleeping in 10ms steps so adjust timeout value */
>> +		timeout /= 10;
>> +
>> +		for (time = timeout; time > 0; time--) {
>> +			if ((snd_sof_dsp_read(sdev, bar, offset) & mask) ==
>> +				target)
> I would leave it on one line.
ok
>
>> +				break;
>> +
>> +			usleep_range(5000, 10000);
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	ret = time ? 0 : -ETIME;
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(snd_sof_dsp_register_poll);
>> +static inline void snd_sof_dsp_write64(struct snd_sof_dev *sdev, u32 bar,
>> +				       u32 offset, u64 value)
>> +{
>> +	if (sdev->ops->write64)
>> +		sdev->ops->write64(sdev,
>> +			sdev->bar[bar] + offset, value);
> Why not one line?
ok
>
>> +}
>