Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:22:44 +0530 | From | kgunda@codeauro ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/5] spmi: pmic-arb: rename pa_xx to pmic_arb_xx and other code cleanup |
| |
On 2017-07-14 23:50, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 07/10, Kiran Gunda wrote: >> >> -static u16 pmic_arb_find_apid(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pa, u16 ppid) >> +static u16 pmic_arb_find_apid(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 >> ppid) >> { >> + struct apid_data *apid_info = >> &pmic_arb->apid_data[pmic_arb->last_apid]; >> u32 regval, offset; >> - u16 apid; >> - u16 id; >> + u16 id, i; >> >> /* >> - * PMIC_ARB_REG_CHNL is a table in HW mapping channel to ppid. >> + * PMIC_ARB_REG_APID is a table in HW mapping apid to ppid. >> * ppid_to_apid is an in-memory invert of that table. >> */ >> - for (apid = pa->last_apid; ; apid++) { >> - offset = PMIC_ARB_REG_CHNL(apid); >> - if (offset >= pa->core_size) >> + for (i = pmic_arb->last_apid; ; i++, apid_info++) { > > Can we keep apid instead of replacing it with i please? That will > reduce the noise in this function. > Sure. Will do that in the next patch. >> + offset = PMIC_ARB_REG_CHNL(i); >> + if (offset >= pmic_arb->core_size) >> break; >> >> - regval = readl_relaxed(pa->cnfg + >> - SPMI_OWNERSHIP_TABLE_REG(apid)); >> - pa->apid_data[apid].owner = SPMI_OWNERSHIP_PERIPH2OWNER(regval); >> + regval = readl_relaxed(pmic_arb->cnfg + >> + SPMI_OWNERSHIP_TABLE_REG(i)); >> + apid_info->owner = SPMI_OWNERSHIP_PERIPH2OWNER(regval); >> >> - regval = readl_relaxed(pa->core + offset); >> + regval = readl_relaxed(pmic_arb->core + offset); >> if (!regval) >> continue; >> >> id = (regval >> 8) & PMIC_ARB_PPID_MASK; >> - pa->ppid_to_apid[id] = apid | PMIC_ARB_CHAN_VALID; >> - pa->apid_data[apid].ppid = id; >> + pmic_arb->ppid_to_apid[id] = i | PMIC_ARB_APID_VALID; >> + apid_info->ppid = id; >> if (id == ppid) { >> - apid |= PMIC_ARB_CHAN_VALID; >> + i |= PMIC_ARB_APID_VALID; >> break; >> } >> } >> - pa->last_apid = apid & ~PMIC_ARB_CHAN_VALID; >> + pmic_arb->last_apid = i & ~PMIC_ARB_APID_VALID; >> >> - return apid; >> + return i; >> } > > Otherwise patch looks ok.
| |