redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout and regmap_field_read_poll_timeout
by read_poll_timeout to simplify code, they have many similar codes.
Dejin Zheng (2):
regmap: redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout to simplify code
regmap: redefined regmap_field_read_poll_timeout to simplify code
include/linux/regmap.h | 48 ++++++++----------------------------------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
--
2.25.0
use read_poll_timeout macro to redefined regmap_field_read_poll_timeout
and also remove the duplicate code.
Signed-off-by: Dejin Zheng <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/regmap.h | 23 ++++-------------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/regmap.h b/include/linux/regmap.h
index 299c1f6a03b4..78ddf224f988 100644
--- a/include/linux/regmap.h
+++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
@@ -194,25 +194,10 @@ struct reg_sequence {
*/
#define regmap_field_read_poll_timeout(field, val, cond, sleep_us, timeout_us) \
({ \
- u64 __timeout_us = (timeout_us); \
- unsigned long __sleep_us = (sleep_us); \
- ktime_t timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), __timeout_us); \
- int pollret; \
- might_sleep_if(__sleep_us); \
- for (;;) { \
- pollret = regmap_field_read((field), &(val)); \
- if (pollret) \
- break; \
- if (cond) \
- break; \
- if (__timeout_us && ktime_compare(ktime_get(), timeout) > 0) { \
- pollret = regmap_field_read((field), &(val)); \
- break; \
- } \
- if (__sleep_us) \
- usleep_range((__sleep_us >> 2) + 1, __sleep_us); \
- } \
- pollret ?: ((cond) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT); \
+ int __ret, __tmp; \
+ __tmp = read_poll_timeout(regmap_field_read, __ret, __ret || (cond), \
+ sleep_us, timeout_us, false, (field), &(val)); \
+ __ret ?: __tmp; \
})
#ifdef CONFIG_REGMAP
--
2.25.0
use read_poll_timeout macro to redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout
and also remove the duplicate code.
Signed-off-by: Dejin Zheng <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/regmap.h | 25 +++++--------------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/regmap.h b/include/linux/regmap.h
index 40b07168fd8e..299c1f6a03b4 100644
--- a/include/linux/regmap.h
+++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
#include <linux/err.h>
#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/lockdep.h>
+#include <linux/iopoll.h>
struct module;
struct clk;
@@ -122,26 +123,10 @@ struct reg_sequence {
*/
#define regmap_read_poll_timeout(map, addr, val, cond, sleep_us, timeout_us) \
({ \
- u64 __timeout_us = (timeout_us); \
- unsigned long __sleep_us = (sleep_us); \
- ktime_t __timeout = ktime_add_us(ktime_get(), __timeout_us); \
- int __ret; \
- might_sleep_if(__sleep_us); \
- for (;;) { \
- __ret = regmap_read((map), (addr), &(val)); \
- if (__ret) \
- break; \
- if (cond) \
- break; \
- if ((__timeout_us) && \
- ktime_compare(ktime_get(), __timeout) > 0) { \
- __ret = regmap_read((map), (addr), &(val)); \
- break; \
- } \
- if (__sleep_us) \
- usleep_range((__sleep_us >> 2) + 1, __sleep_us); \
- } \
- __ret ?: ((cond) ? 0 : -ETIMEDOUT); \
+ int __ret, __tmp; \
+ __tmp = read_poll_timeout(regmap_read, __ret, __ret || (cond), \
+ sleep_us, timeout_us, false, (map), (addr), &(val)); \
+ __ret ?: __tmp; \
})
/**
--
2.25.0
> use read_poll_timeout macro to redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout
> and also remove the duplicate code.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
Subject:
[PATCH 1/2] regmap: Simplify implementation of the regmap_read_poll_timeout() macro
Change description:
Simplify the implementation of the macro “regmap_read_poll_timeout”
by using the macro “read_poll_timeout”.
…
> +++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
…
> @@ -122,26 +123,10 @@ struct reg_sequence {
> */
> #define regmap_read_poll_timeout(map, addr, val, cond, sleep_us, timeout_us) \
> ({ \
…
> + int __ret, __tmp; \
> + __tmp = read_poll_timeout(regmap_read, __ret, __ret || (cond), \
> + sleep_us, timeout_us, false, (map), (addr), &(val)); \
> + __ret ?: __tmp; \
> })
* Can this macro work also with variable names which do not contain
double underscores?
* Can the tag “Fixes” be relevant for such an adjustment?
Regards,
Markus
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 07:09:14PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > use read_poll_timeout macro to redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout
> > and also remove the duplicate code.
>
> How do you think about a wording variant like the following?
>
> Subject:
> [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Simplify implementation of the regmap_read_poll_timeout() macro
>
> Change description:
> Simplify the implementation of the macro “regmap_read_poll_timeout”
> by using the macro “read_poll_timeout”.
>
Good, I will send the patch v2.
>
> …
> > +++ b/include/linux/regmap.h
> …
> > @@ -122,26 +123,10 @@ struct reg_sequence {
> > */
> > #define regmap_read_poll_timeout(map, addr, val, cond, sleep_us, timeout_us) \
> > ({ \
> …
> > + int __ret, __tmp; \
> > + __tmp = read_poll_timeout(regmap_read, __ret, __ret || (cond), \
> > + sleep_us, timeout_us, false, (map), (addr), &(val)); \
> > + __ret ?: __tmp; \
> > })
>
> * Can this macro work also with variable names which do not contain
> double underscores?
>
Yes, this is to avoid using the same variable with its caller.
> * Can the tag “Fixes” be relevant for such an adjustment?
>
I think It is not relevant and we don't need add it.
BR,
Dejin
> Regards,
> Markus
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 21:51:48 +0800, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout and regmap_field_read_poll_timeout
> by read_poll_timeout to simplify code, they have many similar codes.
>
> Dejin Zheng (2):
> regmap: redefined regmap_read_poll_timeout to simplify code
> regmap: redefined regmap_field_read_poll_timeout to simplify code
>
> [...]
Applied to
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regmap.git for-5.8
Thanks!
[1/2] regmap: Simplify implementation of the regmap_read_poll_timeout() macro
commit: e44ab4e14d6f4c448ae555132090c1a116b19e5c
[2/2] regmap: Simplify implementation of the regmap_field_read_poll_timeout() macro
commit: 148c01d176237115d9c2805f6d29c0b6a72fbd10
All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.
If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.
Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.
Thanks,
Mark