lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Use {get,put}_unaligned_le32 accessors
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 03:07:39PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> 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?

Indeed, that's what I found as I wanted to avoid pval, testing now.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-07 16:38    [W:0.065 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site