From: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
Cc: <broonie@kernel.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
<mark.rutland@arm.com>, <Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com>,
<alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
<Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com>,
<Cyrille.Pitchen@microchip.com>, <bugalski.piotr@gmail.com>,
<linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>, <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:37:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190204153713.2fd02769@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25f6ee72-e6e1-7014-6e4b-abe0a1a0eebc@microchip.com>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
> >> +}
> >
> > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> >
>
> Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
> these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.
The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else
block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are
completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here.
Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the
cfg struct.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
To: Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com,
Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com, Cyrille.Pitchen@microchip.com,
bugalski.piotr@gmail.com, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:37:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190204153713.2fd02769@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25f6ee72-e6e1-7014-6e4b-abe0a1a0eebc@microchip.com>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
> >> +}
> >
> > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> >
>
> Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
> these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.
The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else
block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are
completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here.
Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the
cfg struct.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Cyrille.Pitchen@microchip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com,
robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com, broonie@kernel.org,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, bugalski.piotr@gmail.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:37:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190204153713.2fd02769@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25f6ee72-e6e1-7014-6e4b-abe0a1a0eebc@microchip.com>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
> >> +}
> >
> > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> >
>
> Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
> these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.
The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else
block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are
completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here.
Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the
cfg struct.
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@kernel.org>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Cyrille.Pitchen@microchip.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com,
broonie@kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
bugalski.piotr@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 15:37:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190204153713.2fd02769@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <25f6ee72-e6e1-7014-6e4b-abe0a1a0eebc@microchip.com>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR);
> >> +}
> >
> > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the
> > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves
> > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in
> > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in
> > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()?
> >
>
> Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better with
> these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it again.
The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else
block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are
completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here.
Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the
cfg struct.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-04 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-04 10:09 [PATCH v4 00/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: introduce sam9x60 qspi controller Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 01/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: cache MR value to avoid a write access Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:00 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: order header files inclusion alphabetically Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 03/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: drop wrappers for iomem accesses Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 04/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: fix naming scheme Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 05/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: remove unnecessary cast Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 06/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: return appropriate error code Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 07/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: switch to SPDX license identifiers Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 08/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: rework transfer macros Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:01 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v4 09/13] dt-bindings: spi: atmel-quadspi: update example to new clock binding Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:09 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` [PATCH v4 10/13] dt-bindings: spi: atmel-quadspi: make "pclk" mandatory Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` [PATCH v4 11/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for named peripheral clock Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` [PATCH v4 12/13] dt-bindings: spi: atmel-quadspi: QuadSPI driver for Microchip SAM9X60 Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` [PATCH v4 13/13] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60 qspi controller Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 10:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:16 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:28 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:28 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:28 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:28 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-02-04 14:37 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2019-02-04 14:37 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:37 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-02-04 14:37 ` Boris Brezillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190204153713.2fd02769@bbrezillon \
--to=bbrezillon@kernel.org \
--cc=Cyrille.Pitchen@microchip.com \
--cc=Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com \
--cc=Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com \
--cc=Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=bugalski.piotr@gmail.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.