Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1580328504-436-1-git-send-email-eajames@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAHp75VeNs9Zr1vayO8TwVq6=B8fwvv0chOt0in6Dw+WLCezL2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <29f6cc86-69ca-bc88-b6ae-2b1a24c0dae3@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CAHp75Vf3NCkbw39E+d_nf+AyViG2o-u5HxrCjXXmbGk4LaFLog@mail.gmail.com>
 <744f0019-8656-eec1-cb9a-7e70cd042587@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <744f0019-8656-eec1-cb9a-7e70cd042587@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:51:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfOM5Rd3LRBtvyT96G=+J4KxTRoSVUcQTj+RxrGyZMMnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Add FSI-attached SPI controller driver
To:     Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Eddie James <eajames@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
        Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:06 PM Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/20 5:02 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:33 PM Eddie James <eajames@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/30/20 10:37 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:09 PM Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

...

> >>>> +       struct device *dev;
> >>> Isn't fsl->dev the same?
> >>> Perhaps kernel doc to explain the difference?
> >>
> >> No, it's not the same, as dev here is the SPI controller. I'll add a
> >> comment.
> > Why to have duplication then?
>
>
> Nothing is being duplicated, the two variables are storing entirely
> different information, both of which are necessary for each SPI
> controller that this driver is driving.

Oh, I see now, thanks!

...

> >>>> +       for (i = 0; i < num_bytes; ++i)
> >>>> +               rx[i] = (u8)((in >> (8 * ((num_bytes - 1) - i))) & 0xffULL);
> >>> Redundant & 0xffULL part.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it NIH of get_unalinged_be64 / le64 or something similar?
> >>
> >> No, these are shift in/out operations. The read register will also have
> >> previous operations data in them and must be extracted with only the
> >> correct number of bytes.
> > Why not to call put_unaligned() how the tail in this case (it's 0 or
> > can be easily made to be 0) will affect the result?
>
>
> The shift-in is not the same as any byte-swap or unaligned operation.
> For however many bytes we've read, we start at that many bytes
> left-shifted in the register and copy out to our buffer, moving right
> for each next byte... I don't think there is an existing function for
> this operation.

For me it looks like

  u8 tmp[8];

  put_unaligned_be64(in, tmp);
  memcpy(rx, tmp, num_bytes);

put_unaligned*() is just a method to unroll the value to the u8 buffer.
See, for example, linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h implementation.

> >>>> +       return num_bytes;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +static int fsi_spi_data_out(u64 *out, const u8 *tx, int len)
> >>>> +{
> >>> Ditto as for above function. (put_unaligned ...)
> > Ditto.
>
>
> I don't understand how this could work for transfers of less than 8
> bytes, any put_unaligned would access memory that it doesn't own.

Ditto.

> >>>> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko