From: Michael Zavertkin <misha.zavertkin@mail.ru>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: Rustam Adilov <adilov@disroot.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
Stanley Chang <stanley_chang@realtek.com>,
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] phy: realtek: usb2: introduce read and write functions to driver data
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 23:34:06 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <acv3flrlq6Xyj4-K@gamepc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260330213227.zujvcvsxdfknzltz@skbuf>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:32:27AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:19:18AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 09:06:34PM +0500, Rustam Adilov wrote:
> > > +static inline u32 phy_read(void __iomem *reg)
> > > +{
> > > + return readl(reg);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u32 phy_read_le(void __iomem *reg)
> > > +{
> > > + return le32_to_cpu(readl(reg));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void phy_write(u32 val, void __iomem *reg)
> > > +{
> > > + writel(val, reg);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void phy_write_le(u32 val, void __iomem *reg)
> > > +{
> > > + writel(cpu_to_le32(val), reg);
> > > +}
> >
> > Please don't name driver-level functions phy_read() and phy_write().
> > That will collide with networking API functions of the same name and
> > will make grep-based code searching more difficult.
> >
> > Also, have you looked at regmap? It has native support for endianness;
> > it supports regmap_field_read()/regmap_field_write() for abstracting
> > registers which may be found at different places for different HW;
> > it offers regmap_read_poll_timeout() so you don't have to pass the
> > function pointer to utmi_wait_register(). It seems the result would be a
> > bit more elegant.
>
> Even if you decide not to use regmap. I thought I should let you know
> that LLM review says:
>
> Are these double byte-swaps intentional?
>
> Since readl() and writel() inherently perform little-endian memory accesses
> and handle byte-swapping on big-endian architectures automatically, won't
> wrapping them in le32_to_cpu() and cpu_to_le32() apply a second, redundant
> byte-swap?
>
> On big-endian systems, wouldn't these double swaps cancel each other out
> and result in a native big-endian access instead of the intended
> little-endian access? If the SoC bus bridge implicitly swaps and requires
> a native access, should __raw_readl() and __raw_writel() (or ioread32be /
> iowrite32be) be used instead to avoid obfuscating it with double-swaps?
>
> Also, does passing the __le32 restricted type returned by cpu_to_le32()
> into writel() (which expects a native u32) trigger Sparse static analysis
> warnings for an incorrect type in argument?
>
> For reference:
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19.10/source/include/asm-generic/io.h#L184
> /*
> * {read,write}{b,w,l,q}() access little endian memory and return result in
> * native endianness.
> */
There is readl() (and family) function. For most hosts it returns native
endian value (because most systems LE nowadays).
I don't know all context, and don't know exactly why... but for MIPS readl()
returns value in native endianess.
Reference - https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.19.10/source/arch/mips/include/asm/io.h
So we are in interesting situation, when readl() returns native-endian values (BE in our case),
readl_be() returns BE too, because cpu_to_be32() does nothing on BE system, ioread32() returns BE,
but ioread32be() returns LE because of unconditional swab32(). Using *be
to get LE value... kinda weird. That's why we ended up with these two
functions.
Not a perfect solution, so it would be good to hear others opinions and
come to a more proper solution.
UPD. regmap looks like a pretty good solution for endianess stuff, but
it seems to interfere with current register handling (using struct
offsets as register addresses). So it has to be a big work.
For example, Realtek solves this issue that way -
https://github.com/jameywine/GPL-for-GP3000/blob/5090fbcb6ba743dd7b1314811ef557bad0460147/linux-5.10.x/drivers/usb/host/ehci.h#L742
>
> and yes, your patch does trigger sparse warnings:
> ../drivers/phy/realtek/phy-rtk-usb2.c:153:16: warning: cast to restricted __le32
> ../drivers/phy/realtek/phy-rtk-usb2.c:163:16: warning: incorrect type in argument 1 (different base types)
> ../drivers/phy/realtek/phy-rtk-usb2.c:163:16: expected unsigned int val
> ../drivers/phy/realtek/phy-rtk-usb2.c:163:16: got restricted __le32 [usertype]
>
> Furthermore, please drop the 'inline' keyword from C files and let the
> compiler decide. Your use of this keyword has no value - you declare
> phy_read(), phy_read_le() etc as inline but then assign function
> pointers to them. How can the compiler inline the indirect calls?
Thanks for all other review comments, going to be fixed in next patch
series version.
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-31 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-27 16:06 [PATCH v2 0/6] phy: realtek: usb2: support for RTL9607C USB2 PHY Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] phy: realtek: usb2: introduce vstatus/new_reg_req variables to driver data Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] phy: realtek: usb2: introduce read and write functions " Rustam Adilov
2026-03-30 21:19 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-03-30 21:32 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-03-31 16:26 ` Rustam Adilov
2026-03-31 16:34 ` Michael Zavertkin [this message]
2026-03-31 16:51 ` Michael Zavertkin
2026-03-31 15:45 ` Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] dt-bindings: phy: realtek,usb2phy.yaml: extend for resets and RTL9607C support Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] phy: realtek: usb2: introduce reset controller struct Rustam Adilov
2026-03-30 21:39 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-03-31 16:35 ` Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] phy: realtek: usb2: add support for RTL9607C USB2 PHY Rustam Adilov
2026-03-30 21:50 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-03-31 16:48 ` Rustam Adilov
2026-03-31 19:36 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-04-01 14:16 ` Rustam Adilov
2026-03-27 16:06 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] phy: realtek: usb2: Make configs available for MACH_REALTEK_RTL Rustam Adilov
2026-03-30 21:52 ` Vladimir Oltean
2026-03-31 16:48 ` Rustam Adilov
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=acv3flrlq6Xyj4-K@gamepc \
--to=misha.zavertkin@mail.ru \
--cc=adilov@disroot.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=krzk+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=stanley_chang@realtek.com \
--cc=vkoul@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox