Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] media: ccs: Better separate CCS static data access

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Sakari,

Thank you for the patch.

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Separate CCS static data read-only register access in ccs-reg-access.c by
> naming them differently.

"naming the access functions differently"

> The code in this file generally deals with reading and writing registers
> where as static data (when it comes to ccs_static_read_only()) contains
> the read-only register values but no hardware registers are accessed in
> that case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  .../driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs  |  2 +-
>  drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c        | 20 +++++++++----------
>  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs b/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> index 01252ee6062b..3d3152b45821 100755
> --- a/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/media/drivers/ccs/mk-ccs-regs
> @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ if (! defined $kernel) {
>  
>  print $H "#define CCS_FL_FLOAT_IREAL	" . flag_str(\$flag, \$all_flags) . "\n";
>  print $H "#define CCS_FL_IREAL		" . flag_str(\$flag, \$all_flags) . "\n";
> -print $H "#define CCS_BUILD_BUG \
> +print $H "#define CCS_BUILD_BUG \\

This doesn't seem related.

>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(~CCI_REG_PRIVATE_MASK & ($all_flags))\n"
>      if defined $kernel;
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> index 25993445f4fe..652d705a2ef5 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/ccs/ccs-reg-access.c
> @@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ static int __ccs_read_addr(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int __ccs_read_data(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,
> -			   u32 reg, u32 *val)
> +static int __ccs_static_read_only(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,

"static read only" sounds weird when interpreting "read" as a verb. And
if "read" is not a verb, you're missing a verb :-) Maybe
__ccs_read_state_data() would be a better name ? Same below.

> +				  u32 reg, u32 *val)
>  {
>  	unsigned int width = ccs_reg_width(reg);
>  	size_t i;
> @@ -235,16 +235,16 @@ static int __ccs_read_data(struct ccs_reg *regs, size_t num_regs,
>  	return -ENOENT;
>  }
>  
> -static int ccs_read_data(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val)
> +static int ccs_static_read_only(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val)
>  {
> -	if (!__ccs_read_data(sensor->sdata.sensor_read_only_regs,
> -			     sensor->sdata.num_sensor_read_only_regs,
> -			     reg, val))
> +	if (!__ccs_static_read_only(sensor->sdata.sensor_read_only_regs,
> +				    sensor->sdata.num_sensor_read_only_regs,
> +				    reg, val))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	return __ccs_read_data(sensor->mdata.module_read_only_regs,
> -			       sensor->mdata.num_module_read_only_regs,
> -			       reg, val);
> +	return __ccs_static_read_only(sensor->mdata.module_read_only_regs,
> +				      sensor->mdata.num_module_read_only_regs,
> +				      reg, val);
>  }
>  
>  static int ccs_read_addr_raw(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int ccs_read_addr_raw(struct ccs_sensor *sensor, u32 reg, u32 *val,
>  	int rval;
>  
>  	if (data) {
> -		rval = ccs_read_data(sensor, reg, val);
> +		rval = ccs_static_read_only(sensor, reg, val);
>  		if (!rval)
>  			return 0;
>  	}

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart