Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:10:47 -0700 | From | Andrey Pronin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: add driver for cr50 on SPI |
| |
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:03:36AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 05:24:11PM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote: > > > The only two things that bother me with such approach are > > (1) whatever names I pick for the new set of functions, they > > will be similar to and thus might be confused with the > > original tpm_tis_read/writeXX; > > tpm_tis_helper_read16 ? > > > (2) these functions are phy-specific, so possibly it's better > > to create tpm_tis_spi.h and put them there with proper > > name prefixes. And then use in tpm_tis_spi and cr50_spi. > > No, they are generic to any tis phy that implements read only through > read_bytes. > > (Honestly, I'm not sure we made the best choice here having phy > functions for all the versions, we are not that performance > sensitive, just getting rid of everything but read_bytes from the > phy_ops would probably also be a reasonable thing to do.) >
One thing we can do is re-implement functions tpm_tis_read/writeXX to use phy-specific implementations of read16, read32, write32 if they are provided. But if those function pointers are left NULL in phy_ops, fallback to using read/write_bytes and byte-swapping.
I.e., instead of:
static inline int tpm_tis_read16(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 *result) { return data->phy_ops->read16(data, addr, result); }
do the following:
static inline int tpm_tis_read16(struct tpm_tis_data *data, u32 addr, u16 *result) { int rc;
if (data->phy_ops->read16) return data->phy_ops->read16(data, addr, result);
rc = data->phy_ops->read_bytes(data, addr, sizeof(u16), (u8 *)result); if (!rc) *result = le16_to_cpu(*result); return rc; }
If you like the idea, I'll submit it as a separate patch.
Andrey
| |