Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:22:08 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 04/10] reset: eyeq5: add platform driver |
| |
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:04:47PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote: > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:27 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:25PM +0100, Théo Lebrun wrote:
..
> > > + u32 offset = id & GENMASK(7, 0); > > > + u32 domain = id >> 8; > > > > Perhaps > > > > u32 offset = (id & GENMASK(7, 0)) >> 0; > > u32 domain = (id & GENMASK(31, 8)) >> 8; > > > > for better understanding the split? > > Do the additional zero-bit-shift and GENMASK() help understanding? My > brain needs time to parse them to then notice they do nothing and > simplify the code in my head, back to the original version.
In my opinion yes, as you exactly showing the split. But. The better is to use FIELD_GET().
> I personally like the simplest version (the original one). But otherwise > FIELD_GET() with two globally-defined masks could be a solution as > well.
Oh, yes, that's what just came to my mind without even looking here.
> I still prefer the original version better. Less symbols, less > complexity.
[...]
> > > + priv->rcdev.of_node = np; > > > > It's better to use device_set_node(). > > I don't see how device_set_node() can help? It works on struct device > pointers. Here priv->rcdev is a reset_controller_dev struct. There are > no users of device_set_node() in drivers/reset/.
No users doesn't mean it's good. The API is relatively "new" and takes care of two things: 1) it uses agnostic interface; 2) it doesn't require any firmware node direct dereference.
The 2) is most important here as allows us to refactor (firmware node) code in the future.
> > > + priv->rcdev.of_reset_n_cells = 2; > > > + priv->rcdev.of_xlate = eq5r_of_xlate;
However, ideally these should be also translated to use fwnode as IIO did, for example.
..
> > > + priv->rcdev.nr_resets += __builtin_popcount(eq5r_valid_masks[i]); > > > > Please, use corresponding hweightXX() API. > > Noted. I did not find this keyword even though I searched quite a bit > for it. "popcount" sounds more logical to me. :-)
Hmm... But it's fundamental, it's called Hamming weight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_weight
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |