Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Use {get,put}_unaligned_le32 accessors | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:07:39 +0100 |
| |
On 07/08/2019 14:57, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:36:11PM +0200, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> Hi Sudeep, >> >> On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 14:00 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> Instead of type-casting the {tx,rx}.buf all over the place while >>> accessing them to read/write __le32 from/to the firmware, let's use >>> the nice existing {get,put}_unaligned_le32 accessors to hide all the >>> type cast ugliness. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de> >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/base.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c | 10 ++++------ >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h | 2 ++ >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 8 ++++---- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/power.c | 6 +++--- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/reset.c | 2 +- >>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/sensors.c | 12 +++++------- >>> 7 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/base.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/base.c >>> index 204390297f4b..f804e8af6521 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/base.c >>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/base.c >> [...] >>> @@ -204,14 +204,12 @@ scmi_clock_rate_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle, u32 clk_id, u64 *value) >>> if (ret) >>> return ret; >>> >>> - *(__le32 *)t->tx.buf = cpu_to_le32(clk_id); >>> + put_unaligned_le32(clk_id, t->tx.buf); >>> >>> ret = scmi_do_xfer(handle, t); >>> if (!ret) { >>> - __le32 *pval = t->rx.buf; >>> - >>> - *value = le32_to_cpu(*pval); >>> - *value |= (u64)le32_to_cpu(*(pval + 1)) << 32; >>> + *value = get_unaligned_le32(t->rx.buf); >>> + *value |= (u64)get_unaligned_le32(t->rx.buf + 1) << 32; >> >> Isn't t->rx.buf a void pointer? If I am not mistaken, you'd either have >> to keep the pval local variables, or cast to (__le32 *) before doing >> pointer arithmetic. >> > > Ah right, that's the reason I added it at the first place. I will fix that.
Couldn't you just use get_unaligned_le64() here anyway?
Robin.
| |