2024-05-29 07:48:29

by Matthias Schiffer

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 4/8] gpio: tqmx86: introduce _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() helper

Simplify a lot of code in the driver by introducing helpers for the
common RMW pattern. No tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() function with builtin
locking is added, as it would become redundant with the following fixes,
which further consolidate interrupt configuration register setup.

No functional change intended.

Fixes: b868db94a6a7 ("gpio: tqmx86: Add GPIO from for this IO controller")
Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
index 613ab9ef2e744..7a851e1730dd1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
@@ -54,6 +54,17 @@ static void tqmx86_gpio_write(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd, unsigned int reg,
iowrite8(val, gd->io_base + reg);
}

+static void _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd,
+ unsigned int reg, u8 mask, u8 val)
+{
+ u8 tmp = tqmx86_gpio_read(gd, reg);
+
+ tmp &= ~mask;
+ tmp |= val & mask;
+
+ tqmx86_gpio_write(gd, reg, tmp);
+}
+
static int tqmx86_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
{
struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
@@ -110,15 +121,13 @@ static void tqmx86_gpio_irq_mask(struct irq_data *data)
struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(
irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data));
unsigned long flags;
- u8 gpiic, mask;
+ u8 mask;

mask = TQMX86_GPII_MASK << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
-
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio->spinlock, flags);
- gpiic = tqmx86_gpio_read(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC);
- gpiic &= ~mask;
- tqmx86_gpio_write(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, gpiic);
+ _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, mask, 0);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio->spinlock, flags);
+
gpiochip_disable_irq(&gpio->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(data));
}

@@ -128,16 +137,14 @@ static void tqmx86_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *data)
struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gpio = gpiochip_get_data(
irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data));
unsigned long flags;
- u8 gpiic, mask;
-
- mask = TQMX86_GPII_MASK << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
+ u8 mask, val;

gpiochip_enable_irq(&gpio->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(data));
+
+ mask = TQMX86_GPII_MASK << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
+ val = gpio->irq_type[offset] << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio->spinlock, flags);
- gpiic = tqmx86_gpio_read(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC);
- gpiic &= ~mask;
- gpiic |= gpio->irq_type[offset] << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
- tqmx86_gpio_write(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, gpiic);
+ _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, mask, val);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio->spinlock, flags);
}

@@ -148,7 +155,7 @@ static int tqmx86_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int type)
unsigned int offset = (data->hwirq - TQMX86_NGPO);
unsigned int edge_type = type & IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK;
unsigned long flags;
- u8 new_type, gpiic;
+ u8 new_type, mask, val;

switch (edge_type) {
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
@@ -166,11 +173,10 @@ static int tqmx86_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int type)

gpio->irq_type[offset] = new_type;

+ mask = TQMX86_GPII_MASK << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
+ val = new_type << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio->spinlock, flags);
- gpiic = tqmx86_gpio_read(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC);
- gpiic &= ~((TQMX86_GPII_MASK) << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS));
- gpiic |= new_type << (offset * TQMX86_GPII_BITS);
- tqmx86_gpio_write(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, gpiic);
+ _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(gpio, TQMX86_GPIIC, mask, val);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio->spinlock, flags);

return 0;
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
https://www.tq-group.com/



2024-05-29 12:20:01

by Andrew Lunn

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] gpio: tqmx86: introduce _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() helper

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> Simplify a lot of code in the driver by introducing helpers for the
> common RMW pattern. No tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() function with builtin
> locking is added, as it would become redundant with the following fixes,
> which further consolidate interrupt configuration register setup.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Fixes: b868db94a6a7 ("gpio: tqmx86: Add GPIO from for this IO controller")
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> index 613ab9ef2e744..7a851e1730dd1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,17 @@ static void tqmx86_gpio_write(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd, unsigned int reg,
> iowrite8(val, gd->io_base + reg);
> }
>
> +static void _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd,
> + unsigned int reg, u8 mask, u8 val)

Why the _ prefix? This is a local function, it is static, so you don't
have name space issues. Functions starting with _ are those you should
not call without a good reason, there is generally a version without
the _ prefix which is the real function to use. So i would drop the _.

This is also not a fix. Please read:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html

and stick to the rules described there.

I don't know how the GPIO tree works, but for netdev, about a week
after fixes are merged, they appear in net-next. So you can then build
on top of them for development work.

Andrew

2024-05-29 12:25:59

by Matthias Schiffer

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] gpio: tqmx86: introduce _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() helper

On Wed, 2024-05-29 at 14:19 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > Simplify a lot of code in the driver by introducing helpers for the
> > common RMW pattern. No tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() function with builtin
> > locking is added, as it would become redundant with the following fixes,
> > which further consolidate interrupt configuration register setup.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Fixes: b868db94a6a7 ("gpio: tqmx86: Add GPIO from for this IO controller")
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> > index 613ab9ef2e744..7a851e1730dd1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-tqmx86.c
> > @@ -54,6 +54,17 @@ static void tqmx86_gpio_write(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd, unsigned int reg,
> > iowrite8(val, gd->io_base + reg);
> > }
> >
> > +static void _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits(struct tqmx86_gpio_data *gd,
> > + unsigned int reg, u8 mask, u8 val)
>
> Why the _ prefix? This is a local function, it is static, so you don't
> have name space issues. Functions starting with _ are those you should
> not call without a good reason, there is generally a version without
> the _ prefix which is the real function to use. So i would drop the _.

My intention was to mark functions that need to be called while holding the spinlock with a _
prefix. Should I just remove the prefix and add a comment instead?

Matthias


>
> This is also not a fix. Please read:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>
> and stick to the rules described there.
>
> I don't know how the GPIO tree works, but for netdev, about a week
> after fixes are merged, they appear in net-next. So you can then build
> on top of them for development work.
>
> Andrew

--
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider
https://www.tq-group.com/

2024-05-29 12:32:04

by Andrew Lunn

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] gpio: tqmx86: introduce _tqmx86_gpio_update_bits() helper

> My intention was to mark functions that need to be called while holding the spinlock with a _
> prefix. Should I just remove the prefix and add a comment instead?

Yes.

You could also add sparse markup of the locks, or add an
assert_spin_locked(lock);

Andrew