Re: [PATCH 5/7] soundwire: intel: follow documentation sequences for SHIM registers

Vinod Koul
2020-03-23T12:31:49Z

On 20-03-20, 09:20, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

> > > @@ -283,11 +284,48 @@ static int intel_link_power_up(struct sdw_intel *sdw)
> > > {
> > > unsigned int link_id = sdw->instance;
> > > void __iomem *shim = sdw->link_res->shim;
> > > + u32 *shim_mask = sdw->link_res->shim_mask;
> >
> > this is a local pointer, so the one defined previously is not used.
>
> No idea what you are saying, it's the same address so changes to *shim_mask
> will be the same as in *sdw->link_res->shim_mask.

There seems to be too many shim_masks, in global structs, then pointer
and then local ones. It is really confusing...

> > > + struct sdw_bus *bus = &sdw->cdns.bus;
> > > + struct sdw_master_prop *prop = &bus->prop;
> > > int spa_mask, cpa_mask;
> > > - int link_control, ret;
> > > + int link_control;
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > + u32 syncprd;
> > > + u32 sync_reg;
> > > mutex_lock(sdw->link_res->shim_lock);
> > > + /*
> > > + * The hardware relies on an internal counter,
> > > + * typically 4kHz, to generate the SoundWire SSP -
> > > + * which defines a 'safe' synchronization point
> > > + * between commands and audio transport and allows for
> > > + * multi link synchronization. The SYNCPRD value is
> > > + * only dependent on the oscillator clock provided to
> > > + * the IP, so adjust based on _DSD properties reported
> > > + * in DSDT tables. The values reported are based on
> > > + * either 24MHz (CNL/CML) or 38.4 MHz (ICL/TGL+).
> >
> > Sorry this looks quite bad to read, we have 80 chars, so please use
> > like below:
> >
> > /*
> > * The hardware relies on an internal counter, typically 4kHz,
> > * to generate the SoundWire SSP - which defines a 'safe'
> > * synchronization point between commands and audio transport
> > * and allows for multi link synchronization. The SYNCPRD value
> > * is only dependent on the oscillator clock provided to
> > * the IP, so adjust based on _DSD properties reported in DSDT
> > * tables. The values reported are based on either 24MHz
> > * (CNL/CML) or 38.4 MHz (ICL/TGL+).
> > */
>
> Are we really going to have an emacs vs vi discussion here?

What has that got to do with editor to use, nothing imo.

All I am asking is to use 80 chars here and make it look decent to
read. And not truncate at 60 ish chars which seems above

--
~Vinod