From: Olliver Schinagl <[email protected]>
There are users in the Linux kernel that would benefit from using
ioreadXX_poll_timeout() macros, such as ioread32_poll_timeout().
Introduce those macros.
Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/iopoll.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/iopoll.h b/include/linux/iopoll.h
index 2c8860e406bd..30ba609175a7 100644
--- a/include/linux/iopoll.h
+++ b/include/linux/iopoll.h
@@ -140,6 +140,7 @@
#define readx_poll_timeout_atomic(op, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
read_poll_timeout_atomic(op, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us, false, addr)
+/* readX() */
#define readb_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
readx_poll_timeout(readb, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
@@ -164,6 +165,7 @@
#define readq_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
readx_poll_timeout_atomic(readq, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+/* readX_relaxed() */
#define readb_relaxed_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
readx_poll_timeout(readb_relaxed, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
@@ -188,4 +190,29 @@
#define readq_relaxed_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
readx_poll_timeout_atomic(readq_relaxed, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+/* ioreadXX() */
+#define ioread8_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout(ioread8, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread8_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout_atomic(ioread8, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread16_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout(ioread16, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread16_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout_atomic(ioread16, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread32_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread32_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout_atomic(ioread32, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread64_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout(ioread64, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
+#define ioread64_poll_timeout_atomic(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
+ readx_poll_timeout_atomic(ioread64, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
+
#endif /* _LINUX_IOPOLL_H */
--
2.40.0.1.gaa8946217a0b
Hey Andy,
On 30-03-2023 16:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> From: Olliver Schinagl <[email protected]>
>
> There are users in the Linux kernel that would benefit from using
> ioreadXX_poll_timeout() macros, such as ioread32_poll_timeout().
> Introduce those macros.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olliver Schinagl <[email protected]>
> Co-developed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/linux/iopoll.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/iopoll.h b/include/linux/iopoll.h
> index 2c8860e406bd..30ba609175a7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/iopoll.h
> +++ b/include/linux/iopoll.h
> @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@
> #define readx_poll_timeout_atomic(op, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> read_poll_timeout_atomic(op, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us, false, addr)
>
> +/* readX() */
> #define readb_poll_timeout(addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us) \
> readx_poll_timeout(readb, addr, val, cond, delay_us, timeout_us)
>
> <snip>
> #endif /* _LINUX_IOPOLL_H */
Thanks for re-posting this? (I don't recall If I actually posted the
first time around).
But I actually have a small addendum for this series, as it will break
`drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_dpmaif.c` due to a redefinition (yeah I know).
So I have:
https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/c9e591f2dabb2dbaeceebee61fa70b70fdbffc2a
https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/41e0f8c08a1c55940813a240215910336ad7bec2
https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/f36562f09b0185d403415864ef7218b46a742cdc
https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/66237fd97bc42d272602b01dc0cca541c619b2be
Which actually replaces silly calls like readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, ... .
Do you want me to (re-?)post this as a series? I can put your
thunderbolt (and your changes here) and post as one big series (or you
can do the same obviously).
Olliver
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:12:31AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> On 30-03-2023 16:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> But I actually have a small addendum for this series, as it will break
> `drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_dpmaif.c` due to a redefinition (yeah I know).
>
> So I have:
> https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/c9e591f2dabb2dbaeceebee61fa70b70fdbffc2a
> https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/41e0f8c08a1c55940813a240215910336ad7bec2
> https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/f36562f09b0185d403415864ef7218b46a742cdc
> https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/66237fd97bc42d272602b01dc0cca541c619b2be
>
> Which actually replaces silly calls like readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, ... .
>
> Do you want me to (re-?)post this as a series? I can put your thunderbolt
> (and your changes here) and post as one big series (or you can do the same
> obviously).
I believe the best course of action is to collect this series and your fix
in your hands and send it as a material for Linux WWAN subsystem with Mika's
Ack (if he has no objections). That said, let's wait for Mika's answer
on this.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:12:31AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > On 30-03-2023 16:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > But I actually have a small addendum for this series, as it will break
> > `drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_dpmaif.c` due to a redefinition (yeah I know).
> >
> > So I have:
> > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/c9e591f2dabb2dbaeceebee61fa70b70fdbffc2a
> > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/41e0f8c08a1c55940813a240215910336ad7bec2
> > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/f36562f09b0185d403415864ef7218b46a742cdc
> > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/66237fd97bc42d272602b01dc0cca541c619b2be
> >
> > Which actually replaces silly calls like readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, ... .
> >
> > Do you want me to (re-?)post this as a series? I can put your thunderbolt
> > (and your changes here) and post as one big series (or you can do the same
> > obviously).
>
> I believe the best course of action is to collect this series and your fix
> in your hands and send it as a material for Linux WWAN subsystem with Mika's
> Ack (if he has no objections). That said, let's wait for Mika's answer
> on this.
No objections from my side.
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:41:47PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:12:31AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > > On 30-03-2023 16:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > But I actually have a small addendum for this series, as it will break
> > > `drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_dpmaif.c` due to a redefinition (yeah I know).
> > >
> > > So I have:
> > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/c9e591f2dabb2dbaeceebee61fa70b70fdbffc2a
> > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/41e0f8c08a1c55940813a240215910336ad7bec2
> > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/f36562f09b0185d403415864ef7218b46a742cdc
> > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/66237fd97bc42d272602b01dc0cca541c619b2be
> > >
> > > Which actually replaces silly calls like readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, ... .
> > >
> > > Do you want me to (re-?)post this as a series? I can put your thunderbolt
> > > (and your changes here) and post as one big series (or you can do the same
> > > obviously).
> >
> > I believe the best course of action is to collect this series and your fix
> > in your hands and send it as a material for Linux WWAN subsystem with Mika's
> > Ack (if he has no objections). That said, let's wait for Mika's answer
> > on this.
>
> No objections from my side.
Thank you, Mika!
This implies that I stop issuing a new version and Olliver takes over.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 02:15:42PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 12:41:47PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 11:58:15AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 10:12:31AM +0200, Olliver Schinagl wrote:
> > > > On 30-03-2023 16:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > > But I actually have a small addendum for this series, as it will break
> > > > `drivers/net/wwan/t7xx/t7xx_dpmaif.c` due to a redefinition (yeah I know).
> > > >
> > > > So I have:
> > > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/c9e591f2dabb2dbaeceebee61fa70b70fdbffc2a
> > > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/41e0f8c08a1c55940813a240215910336ad7bec2
> > > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/f36562f09b0185d403415864ef7218b46a742cdc
> > > > https://gitlab.com/olliver/linux/-/commit/66237fd97bc42d272602b01dc0cca541c619b2be
> > > >
> > > > Which actually replaces silly calls like readx_poll_timeout(ioread32, ... .
> > > >
> > > > Do you want me to (re-?)post this as a series? I can put your thunderbolt
> > > > (and your changes here) and post as one big series (or you can do the same
> > > > obviously).
> > >
> > > I believe the best course of action is to collect this series and your fix
> > > in your hands and send it as a material for Linux WWAN subsystem with Mika's
> > > Ack (if he has no objections). That said, let's wait for Mika's answer
> > > on this.
> >
> > No objections from my side.
>
> Thank you, Mika!
>
> This implies that I stop issuing a new version and Olliver takes over.
Olliver, just note that I reduced a lot your initial patch in a sense to add
only what is close to the existing users, i.e. ioreadXX() and their atomic
versions (no be(), no _rep() variants). If you are objecting that, you need
to have yet another patch(es) to prove that there are users.
Also note, that I reordered macro appearance to be consistent with existing
schema.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko