[PATCH 1/8] spi: spi-ep93xx: use read,write instead of __raw_* variants

[PATCH 1/8] spi: spi-ep93xx: use read,write instead of __raw_* variants

[H Hartley Sweeten]

The memory resource used by this driver is ioremap()'d and the normal
read,write calls can be used instead of the __raw_* variants.

Remove the inline read,write helpers and just do the read,write
directly in the callers.

Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>
Cc: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@gmail.com>
Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@iki.fi>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c | 64 +++++++++++++++---------------------------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
index d7bac60..c633cd0 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
@@ -158,30 +158,6 @@ struct ep93xx_spi_chip {
 /* converts bits per word to CR0.DSS value */
 #define bits_per_word_to_dss(bpw)	((bpw) - 1)
 
-static inline void
-ep93xx_spi_write_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi, u16 reg, u8 value)
-{
-	__raw_writeb(value, espi->regs_base + reg);
-}
-
-static inline u8
-ep93xx_spi_read_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *spi, u16 reg)
-{
-	return __raw_readb(spi->regs_base + reg);
-}
-
-static inline void
-ep93xx_spi_write_u16(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi, u16 reg, u16 value)
-{
-	__raw_writew(value, espi->regs_base + reg);
-}
-
-static inline u16
-ep93xx_spi_read_u16(const struct ep93xx_spi *spi, u16 reg)
-{
-	return __raw_readw(spi->regs_base + reg);
-}
-
 static int ep93xx_spi_enable(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 {
 	u8 regval;
@@ -191,9 +167,9 @@ static int ep93xx_spi_enable(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	regval = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPCR1);
+	regval = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 	regval |= SSPCR1_SSE;
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCR1, regval);
+	writeb(regval, espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -202,9 +178,9 @@ static void ep93xx_spi_disable(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 {
 	u8 regval;
 
-	regval = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPCR1);
+	regval = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 	regval &= ~SSPCR1_SSE;
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCR1, regval);
+	writeb(regval, espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 
 	clk_disable(espi->clk);
 }
@@ -213,18 +189,18 @@ static void ep93xx_spi_enable_interrupts(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 {
 	u8 regval;
 
-	regval = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPCR1);
+	regval = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 	regval |= (SSPCR1_RORIE | SSPCR1_TIE | SSPCR1_RIE);
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCR1, regval);
+	writeb(regval, espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 }
 
 static void ep93xx_spi_disable_interrupts(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 {
 	u8 regval;
 
-	regval = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPCR1);
+	regval = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 	regval &= ~(SSPCR1_RORIE | SSPCR1_TIE | SSPCR1_RIE);
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCR1, regval);
+	writeb(regval, espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -437,8 +413,8 @@ static void ep93xx_spi_chip_setup(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi,
 		chip->spi->mode, chip->div_cpsr, chip->div_scr, chip->dss);
 	dev_dbg(&espi->pdev->dev, "setup: cr0 %#x", cr0);
 
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCPSR, chip->div_cpsr);
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u16(espi, SSPCR0, cr0);
+	writeb(chip->div_cpsr, espi->regs_base + SSPCPSR);
+	writew(cr0, espi->regs_base + SSPCR0);
 }
 
 static inline int bits_per_word(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
@@ -456,14 +432,14 @@ static void ep93xx_do_write(struct ep93xx_spi *espi, struct spi_transfer *t)
 
 		if (t->tx_buf)
 			tx_val = ((u16 *)t->tx_buf)[espi->tx];
-		ep93xx_spi_write_u16(espi, SSPDR, tx_val);
+		writew(tx_val, espi->regs_base + SSPDR);
 		espi->tx += sizeof(tx_val);
 	} else {
 		u8 tx_val = 0;
 
 		if (t->tx_buf)
 			tx_val = ((u8 *)t->tx_buf)[espi->tx];
-		ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPDR, tx_val);
+		writeb(tx_val, espi->regs_base + SSPDR);
 		espi->tx += sizeof(tx_val);
 	}
 }
@@ -473,14 +449,14 @@ static void ep93xx_do_read(struct ep93xx_spi *espi, struct spi_transfer *t)
 	if (bits_per_word(espi) > 8) {
 		u16 rx_val;
 
-		rx_val = ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPDR);
+		rx_val = readw(espi->regs_base + SSPDR);
 		if (t->rx_buf)
 			((u16 *)t->rx_buf)[espi->rx] = rx_val;
 		espi->rx += sizeof(rx_val);
 	} else {
 		u8 rx_val;
 
-		rx_val = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPDR);
+		rx_val = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPDR);
 		if (t->rx_buf)
 			((u8 *)t->rx_buf)[espi->rx] = rx_val;
 		espi->rx += sizeof(rx_val);
@@ -504,7 +480,7 @@ static int ep93xx_spi_read_write(struct ep93xx_spi *espi)
 	struct spi_transfer *t = msg->state;
 
 	/* read as long as RX FIFO has frames in it */
-	while ((ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE)) {
+	while ((readb(espi->regs_base + SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE)) {
 		ep93xx_do_read(espi, t);
 		espi->fifo_level--;
 	}
@@ -831,14 +807,14 @@ static void ep93xx_spi_process_message(struct ep93xx_spi *espi,
 	 * Just to be sure: flush any data from RX FIFO.
 	 */
 	timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(SPI_TIMEOUT);
-	while (ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE) {
+	while (readw(espi->regs_base + SSPSR) & SSPSR_RNE) {
 		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
 			dev_warn(&espi->pdev->dev,
 				 "timeout while flushing RX FIFO\n");
 			msg->status = -ETIMEDOUT;
 			return;
 		}
-		ep93xx_spi_read_u16(espi, SSPDR);
+		readw(espi->regs_base + SSPDR);
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -917,7 +893,7 @@ static void ep93xx_spi_work(struct work_struct *work)
 static irqreturn_t ep93xx_spi_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
 {
 	struct ep93xx_spi *espi = dev_id;
-	u8 irq_status = ep93xx_spi_read_u8(espi, SSPIIR);
+	u8 irq_status = readb(espi->regs_base + SSPIIR);
 
 	/*
 	 * If we got ROR (receive overrun) interrupt we know that something is
@@ -925,7 +901,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ep93xx_spi_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
 	 */
 	if (unlikely(irq_status & SSPIIR_RORIS)) {
 		/* clear the overrun interrupt */
-		ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPICR, 0);
+		writeb(0, espi->regs_base + SSPICR);
 		dev_warn(&espi->pdev->dev,
 			 "receive overrun, aborting the message\n");
 		espi->current_msg->status = -EIO;
@@ -1111,7 +1087,7 @@ static int ep93xx_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	espi->running = true;
 
 	/* make sure that the hardware is disabled */
-	ep93xx_spi_write_u8(espi, SSPCR1, 0);
+	writeb(0, espi->regs_base + SSPCR1);
 
 	error = spi_register_master(master);
 	if (error) {
-- 
1.8.1.4

Re: [PATCH 1/8] spi: spi-ep93xx: use read,write instead of __raw_* variants

[Ryan Mallon]

On 29/06/13 04:42, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:

> The memory resource used by this driver is ioremap()'d and the normal
> read,write calls can be used instead of the __raw_* variants.
> 
> Remove the inline read,write helpers and just do the read,write
> directly in the callers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten-3FF4nKcrg1dE2c76skzGb0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Ryan Mallon <rmallon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg-X3B1VOXEql0@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
>  drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c | 64 +++++++++++++++---------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c b/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
> index d7bac60..c633cd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-ep93xx.c
> @@ -158,30 +158,6 @@ struct ep93xx_spi_chip {
>  /* converts bits per word to CR0.DSS value */
>  #define bits_per_word_to_dss(bpw)	((bpw) - 1)
>  
> -static inline void
> -ep93xx_spi_write_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *espi, u16 reg, u8 value)
> -{
> -	__raw_writeb(value, espi->regs_base + reg);
> -}
> -
> -static inline u8
> -ep93xx_spi_read_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *spi, u16 reg)
> -{
> -	return __raw_readb(spi->regs_base + reg);
> -}


Is there a particular reason to drop these functions? It's basically just
bike-shedding, but they can make the code more readable at very little
cost. Even dropping the inline (which is preferred nowdays) the compiler
will still inline these, and it would also make this patch much smaller
to keep them.

~Ryan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev

Re: [PATCH 1/8] spi: spi-ep93xx: use read,write instead of __raw_* variants

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:15:09AM +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 29/06/13 04:42, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:

> > -static inline u8
> > -ep93xx_spi_read_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *spi, u16 reg)
> > -{
> > -	return __raw_readb(spi->regs_base + reg);
> > -}

> Is there a particular reason to drop these functions? It's basically just
> bike-shedding, but they can make the code more readable at very little
> cost. Even dropping the inline (which is preferred nowdays) the compiler
> will still inline these, and it would also make this patch much smaller
> to keep them.

I tend to agree, it's much more normal to have the base + reg in a
function than not.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

RE: [PATCH 1/8] spi: spi-ep93xx: use read,write instead of __raw_* variants

[H Hartley Sweeten]

On Monday, July 01, 2013 3:58 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 09:15:09AM +1000, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>> On 29/06/13 04:42, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>
>>> -static inline u8
>>> -ep93xx_spi_read_u8(const struct ep93xx_spi *spi, u16 reg)
>>> -{
>>> -	return __raw_readb(spi->regs_base + reg);
>>> -}
>
>> Is there a particular reason to drop these functions? It's basically just
>> bike-shedding, but they can make the code more readable at very little
>> cost. Even dropping the inline (which is preferred nowdays) the compiler
>> will still inline these, and it would also make this patch much smaller
>> to keep them.
>
> I tend to agree, it's much more normal to have the base + reg in a
> function than not.

OK. I will redo this one to just remove the __raw_.

Regards,
Hartley


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev