From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@microchip.com>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91-pio4: implement .get_multiple and .set_multiple
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 11:11:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190911091101.GC21254@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdbVC6DLHWftpL1wfkx_kWyfE=LpCQWZw=cv=RMVxDBm_g@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/09/2019 01:27:10+0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 3:13 PM Alexandre Belloni
> <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Implement .get_multiple and .set_multiple to allow reading or setting
> > multiple pins simultaneously. Pins in the same bank will all be switched at
> > the same time, improving synchronization and performances.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
>
> Good initiative!
>
> > + for (bank = 0; bank < atmel_pioctrl->nbanks; bank++) {> + unsigned int word = bank;
> > + unsigned int offset = 0;
> > + unsigned int reg;
> > +
> > +#if ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK != BITS_PER_LONG
>
> Should it not be > rather than != ?
>
Realistically, the only case that could happen would be
ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK == 32 and BITS_PER_LONG ==64. so I would go for
ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK < BITS_PER_LONG
> > + word = BIT_WORD(bank * ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK);
> > + offset = bank * ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK % BITS_PER_LONG;
> > +#endif
>
> This doesn't look good for multiplatform kernels.
>
I don't think we have multiplatform kernels that run both in 32 and 64
bits. I don't believe ATMEL_PIO_NPINS_PER_BANK will ever change, it has
been 32 on all the atmel SoCs since 2001.
> We need to get rid of any compiletime constants like this.
>
> Not your fault I suppose it is already there, but this really need
> to be fixed. Any ideas?
>
I can go for a variable instead of a constant but the fact is that there
is currently no 64bit SoC with that IP. I added the compile time check
just in case a 64 bit SoC appears with that IP one day.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-11 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-05 14:13 [PATCH] pinctrl: at91-pio4: implement .get_multiple and .set_multiple Alexandre Belloni
2019-09-05 14:33 ` Claudiu.Beznea
2019-09-11 0:27 ` Linus Walleij
2019-09-11 9:11 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2019-09-12 13:46 ` Linus Walleij
2019-09-14 19:36 ` Ludovic Desroches
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=20190911091101.GC21254@piout.net \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludovic.desroches@microchip.com \
--cc=nicolas.ferre@microchip.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).