[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: On register r/w macros/procedures of drivers/media/pci
On 04/19/2015 09:36 AM, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> I am starting a work on driver for techwell tw5864 media grabber&encoder.
> I am basing on tw68 driver (mentorship, advising and testing by board
> owners are appreciated). And here (and in some other
> drivers/media/pci/ drivers) I see what confuses me:
> tw68-core.c:
> dev->lmmio = ioremap(pci_resource_start(pci_dev, 0),
> pci_resource_len(pci_dev, 0));
> dev->bmmio = (__u8 __iomem *)dev->lmmio;
> tw68.h:
> #define tw_readl(reg) readl(dev->lmmio + ((reg) >> 2))
> #define tw_readb(reg) readb(dev->bmmio + (reg))
> #define tw_writel(reg, value) writel((value), dev->lmmio + ((reg) >> 2))
> #define tw_writeb(reg, value) writeb((value), dev->bmmio + (reg))
> I am mostly userland developer and I wouldn't expect bmmio pointer to
> contain value numerically different from lmmio after such simple
> casting.

Check the types of llmio and bbmio:

u32 __iomem *lmmio;
u8 __iomem *bmmio;

So the values of the pointers are the same, but the types are not.

So 'lmmio + 1' == 'bmmio + sizeof(u32)' == 'bbmio + 4'.

Since all the registers are defined as byte offsets relative to the start
of the memory map you cannot just do 'lmmio + reg' since that would be a
factor 4 off. Instead you have to divide by 4 to get it back in line.

Frankly, I don't think lmmio is necessary at all since readl/writel don't
need a u32 pointer at all since they use void pointers. I never noticed
that when I cleaned up the tw68 driver. Using 'void __iomem *mmio' instead
of lmmio/bmmio and dropping the shifts in the tw_ macros would work just
as well.

> But still, if this is correct, then how should I implement
> tw_{read,write}w to operate on 2 bytes (a word)? Similarly, it would
> look like this:
> #define tw_readl(reg) readl(dev->lmmio + ((reg) >> 1))

As suggested above, just use a single void __iomem *mmio pointer.

> That looks odd.
> In contrary, in drivers/media/pci/dm1105, we see no explicit shifting
> of register address. It uses {in,out}{b,w,l} macros, which seem to
> turn out the same {read,write}{b,w,l} (with some reservations):
> dm1105.c:#define dm_io_mem(reg) ((unsigned long)(&dev->io_mem[reg]))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_readb(reg) inb(dm_io_mem(reg))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_writeb(reg, value) outb((value), (dm_io_mem(reg)))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_readw(reg) inw(dm_io_mem(reg))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_writew(reg, value) outw((value), (dm_io_mem(reg)))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_readl(reg) inl(dm_io_mem(reg))
> dm1105.c:#define dm_writel(reg, value) outl((value), (dm_io_mem(reg)))
> This looks like contradiction to me (shifting register address vs. no
> shifting), so that one practice may be even just wrong and broken
> (which is hard to believe due to active maintenance of all drivers).
> I highly appreciate your help me in determining the best practice to
> follow in this new driver.
> Thanks.

Hope this helps,


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-19 10:41    [W:0.058 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site