Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:37:38 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |