lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [patch 2.6.18-git] SPI -- Freescale iMX SPI controller driver
Date
> > > ...
> > > ug. Why not simply open-code
> > >
> > > readl(addr + DATA);
> >
> > I found usefull to define macros to use inside code something like
> > rd_CONTROL(regs)
> > instead of
> > readl(regs + 0x08)
> > since to me the macro sounds more friendly.
> > Should I have to adhere to some standard ?
> >
> The standards are more or less to avoid creating namespace clutter,
> and to make explicit where register access happens. Defining new
> macros violates the former; not being able to tell where the chip
> registers are accessed (because they're wrapped in macros) violates
> the latter.

What you're saying is clear.
But I'm a little bit confused...what about the lot of definitions that use __REG or __REG2 macros to define registers address
(inside imx-regs.h, pxa-regs.h and so on) ?




> > > The use of loops_per_jiffy seems inappropriate. That's an IO-space read in
> > > there, which is slow. This timeout will be very long indeed.
> >
> > Please suggest me what it's more appropriate.
>
> Pick a constant, use it.

How should I choose the value of that costant ?
Please suggest me.



- Andrea



-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]
Inviato: sabato 7 ottobre 2006 1.35
A: Andrea Paterniani
Cc: Andrew Morton; Linux Kernel list
Oggetto: Re: [patch 2.6.18-git] SPI -- Freescale iMX SPI controller
driver


On Tuesday 03 October 2006 9:08 am, Andrea Paterniani wrote:
> Here some questions and answers to your comments, (please consider I'm nearly new to kernel programming).
>
>
>
> > ...
> > ug. Why not simply open-code
> >
> > readl(addr + DATA);
>
> I found usefull to define macros to use inside code something like
> rd_CONTROL(regs)
> instead of
> readl(regs + 0x08)
> since to me the macro sounds more friendly.
> Should I have to adhere to some standard ?

The standards are more or less to avoid creating namespace clutter,
and to make explicit where register access happens. Defining new
macros violates the former; not being able to tell where the chip
registers are accessed (because they're wrapped in macros) violates
the latter.


> > The use of loops_per_jiffy seems inappropriate. That's an IO-space read in
> > there, which is slow. This timeout will be very long indeed.
>
> Please suggest me what it's more appropriate.

Pick a constant, use it.



> > I see tasklets being scheduled, but no tasklet_disable() or tasklet_kill(),
> > etc. Is this driver racy against shutdown or rmmod?
>
> Do you mean I should use tasklet_kill() inside spi_imx_remove ?

That's how I read it. :)


> > > + drv_data->rd_data_phys = (dma_addr_t)res->start;
> >
> > I don't think it's correct to cast a kernel virtual address straight to a
> > dma_addr_t.
>
> File include/asm-arm/types.h defines
> typedef u32 dma_addr_t;
> Also I think that for ARM architecture resource_size_t in practice
> is u32 since CONFIG_RESOURCES_64BIT isn't defined.
> Is this construction correct ? If not what should I do ?

I think it's correct; it's certainly standard for converting physical
addresses to DMA addresses. (Andrew got that one wrong; resource
addresses are physical, not virtual.)

- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-07 13:05    [W:0.050 / U:25.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site