Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] thermal: armada: Simplify the check of the validity bit

Miquel RAYNAL
2017-12-15T10:56:45Z

Hello Baruch,

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:33:16 +0200
Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il> wrote:

> Hi Miquel,
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:30:03AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > All Armada SoCs use one bit to declare if the sensor values are
> > valid. This bit moves across the versions of the IP.
> >
> > The method until then was to do both a shift and compare with an
> > useless flag of "0x1". It is clearer and quicker to directly save
> > the value that must be ANDed instead of the bit position and do a
> > single bitwise AND operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/thermal/armada_thermal.c | 12 +++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/armada_thermal.c
> > b/drivers/thermal/armada_thermal.c index 6c4af2622d4f..26698f2d3ca7
> > 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/armada_thermal.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/armada_thermal.c
> > @@ -24,8 +24,6 @@
> > #include <linux/of_device.h>
> > #include <linux/thermal.h>
> >
> > -#define THERMAL_VALID_MASK 0x1
> > -
> > /* Thermal Manager Control and Status Register */
> > #define PMU_TDC0_SW_RST_MASK (0x1 << 1)
> > #define PMU_TM_DISABLE_OFFS 0
> > @@ -67,7 +65,7 @@ struct armada_thermal_data {
> > /* Register shift and mask to access the sensor
> > temperature */ unsigned int temp_shift;
> > unsigned int temp_mask;
> > - unsigned int is_valid_shift;
> > + unsigned int is_valid_bit;
>
> Type should be u32 now, I think.

Indeed, I'll change it in next version.

>
> > };
> >
> > static void armadaxp_init_sensor(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > @@ -151,7 +149,7 @@ static bool armada_is_valid(struct
> > armada_thermal_priv *priv) {
> > unsigned long reg = readl_relaxed(priv->sensor);
>
> u32 here also, I think. But that's unrelated to this patch.

I completely agree, actually this is done in the next patch, moving all
"unsigned long reg" to "u32 reg" while renaming the registers
pointers, hope this is fine?

>
> > - return (reg >> priv->data->is_valid_shift) &
> > THERMAL_VALID_MASK;
> > + return reg & priv->data->is_valid_bit;
> > }
> >
> > static int armada_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal,
> > @@ -199,7 +197,7 @@ static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armadaxp_data = { static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada370_data = { .is_valid = armada_is_valid,
> > .init_sensor = armada370_init_sensor,
> > - .is_valid_shift = 9,
> > + .is_valid_bit = BIT(9),
> > .temp_shift = 10,
> > .temp_mask = 0x1ff,
> > .coef_b = 3153000000UL,
> > @@ -210,7 +208,7 @@ static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada370_data = { static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada375_data = { .is_valid = armada_is_valid,
> > .init_sensor = armada375_init_sensor,
> > - .is_valid_shift = 10,
> > + .is_valid_bit = BIT(10),
> > .temp_shift = 0,
> > .temp_mask = 0x1ff,
> > .coef_b = 3171900000UL,
> > @@ -221,7 +219,7 @@ static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada375_data = { static const struct armada_thermal_data
> > armada380_data = { .is_valid = armada_is_valid,
> > .init_sensor = armada380_init_sensor,
> > - .is_valid_shift = 10,
> > + .is_valid_bit = BIT(10),
> > .temp_shift = 0,
> > .temp_mask = 0x3ff,
> > .coef_b = 1172499100UL,
>
> baruch
>

Best regards,
Miquèl