From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc: Yao Jin <yao.jin@intel.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] i2c: designware: No need to disable already disabled controller
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 20:34:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140602173408.GB1730@lahna.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140602161234.GG2654@katana>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 06:12:34PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:37:21PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > If the controller is already in desired state (enabled/disabled) there is
> > no point in setting its state again.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
>
> Does it have a side-effect when setting then enable bit again? Otherwise
> it will exit the loop immediately on the first try. Not too bad IMO
> given the additional code saved.
AFAICT there shouldn't be any side effect. So the $subject patch just
saves one register write in the best case. You are right, maybe it's not
worth adding 3 extra lines of code just for that :)
>
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c
> > index b58ecf19e767..b0792675b970 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.c
> > @@ -258,6 +258,10 @@ static void __i2c_dw_enable(struct dw_i2c_dev *dev, bool enable)
> > {
> > int timeout = 100;
> >
> > + /* In case the controller is already in desired state */
> > + if ((dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_ENABLE_STATUS) & 1) == enable)
> > + return;
> > +
> > do {
> > dw_writel(dev, enable, DW_IC_ENABLE);
> > if ((dw_readl(dev, DW_IC_ENABLE_STATUS) & 1) == enable)
> > --
> > 2.0.0.rc2
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-02 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-15 14:37 [PATCH 0/4] i2c: designware: Fixes for Asus T100 and Haswell PCI IDs Mika Westerberg
2014-05-15 14:37 ` [PATCH 1/4] i2c: designware: No need to disable already disabled controller Mika Westerberg
2014-06-02 16:12 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-06-02 17:34 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2014-06-02 17:36 ` Wolfram Sang
2014-05-15 14:37 ` [PATCH 2/4] i2c: designware: Disable device on system suspend Mika Westerberg
2014-05-15 14:37 ` [PATCH 3/4] i2c: designware: Add runtime PM hooks Mika Westerberg
2014-05-15 14:37 ` [PATCH 4/4] i2c: designware-pci: Add Haswell PCI IDs Mika Westerberg
2014-06-06 22:44 ` [4/4] " Scot Doyle
2014-06-02 16:16 ` [PATCH 0/4] i2c: designware: Fixes for Asus T100 and " Wolfram Sang
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=20140602173408.GB1730@lahna.fi.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
--cc=yao.jin@intel.com \
/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