From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915/gmbus: Reset the controller on
	initialisation
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:26:55 +0100
Message-ID: <b7da2f$r00a4i@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
References: <1301995458-2699-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1301995458-2699-6-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<yunhbacfm7l.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E709E734
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue,  5 Apr 2011 14:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <yunhbacfm7l.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:59:58 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com> wrote:
> On Tue,  5 Apr 2011 10:24:18 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Toggle the Software Clear Interrupt bit which resets the controller to
> > clear any prior BUS_ERROR condition before we begin to use the
> > controller in earnest.
> 
> We do this in two places now, do we want to share the code?
> 
> > +	int reg_offset;
> > +
> > +	reg_offset = 0;
> >  	if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > -		I915_WRITE(PCH_GMBUS0, 0);
> > -	else
> > -		I915_WRITE(GMBUS0, 0);
> > +		reg_offset = PCH_GMBUS0 - GMBUS0;
> > +
> > +	/* First reset the controller by toggling the Sw Clear Interrupt. */
> > +	I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, GMBUS_SW_CLR_INT);
> > +	I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, 0);
> > +
> > +	/* Then mark the controller as disabled. */
> > +	I915_WRITE(GMBUS0 + reg_offset, 0);
> 
> That's really ugly register addressing, but it looks like a common idiom
> in this file...

I'd change the lot for a cleaner method, the best I thought of was a
change of names for the constants/variables.

IMO,

static void i915_gmbus_write(struct drm_device *dev, int reg, int value)
{
	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
	I915_WRITE(reg + (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev) ? PCH_GMBUS0 : GMBUS0), value);
}

expands to something dreadful.

But with a

#define GMBUS_WRITE(reg, value) i915_gmbus_write(dev, reg, value)

we go from 

  I915_WRITE(GMBUS0 + reg_offset, 0);

to

  GMBUS_WRITE(0, 0);

I would still prefer GMBUS_WRITE(GMBUS0, 0); though.

As the patch only addresses a theoretical bug, we can punt the meat of the
patch till later and attack the stylistic points first. (Obviously through
-next.)
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre