Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-86955-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:48:55 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Th=E9o?= Lebrun <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>
Cc: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	=?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <rafal@milecki.pl>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
	Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com>,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 03/10] clk: eyeq5: add platform driver, and init
 routine at of_clk_init()
Message-ID: <ZeCnZ0Py62EyKI9Z@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240227-mbly-clk-v8-0-c57fbda7664a@bootlin.com>
 <20240227-mbly-clk-v8-3-c57fbda7664a@bootlin.com>
 <Zd4X3NnBoEl0wu2H@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CZGSB2O8P572.28HK6WFT43N6S@bootlin.com>
 <ZeBnX2upNRN0xXH4@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CZHMSNWMH4KJ.2J6ZMWKMSZYH2@bootlin.com>
 <ZeCbvgWY6x1o17Kq@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CZHOCV35A23S.14HL07U73EH6X@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CZHOCV35A23S.14HL07U73EH6X@bootlin.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 04:40:25PM +0100, Th?o Lebrun wrote:
> On Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 3:59 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 03:27:01PM +0100, Th?o Lebrun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 03:33:29PM +0100, Th?o Lebrun wrote:
> > > > On Tue Feb 27, 2024 at 6:11 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:55:24PM +0100, Th?o Lebrun wrote:

[...]

> > > > > > > +	u32		reg;	/* next 8 bytes are r0 and r1 */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not sure this comments gives any clarification to a mere reader of the code.
> > > > > > Perhaps you want to name this as reg64 (at least it will show that you have
> > > > > > 8 bytes, but I have no clue what is the semantic relationship between r0 and
> > > > > > r1, it's quite cryptic to me). Or maybe it should be reg_0_1?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Clocks are defined by two 32-bit registers. We only store the first
> > > > > register offset because they always follow each other.
> > > >
> > > > > I like the reg64 name and will remove the comment. This straight forward
> > > > > code is found in the rest of the code, I don't think it is anything
> > > > > hard to understand (ie does not need a comment):
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	u32 r0 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg);
> > > > > 	u32 r1 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg + sizeof(r0));
> > > >
> > > > Btw, why readq()/writeq() (with probably the inclusion of io-64-nonatomic-lo-hi.h)
> > > > can be used in this case? It will be much better overall and be aligned with
> > > > reg64 name.
> > > 
> > > The doc talks in terms of 32-bit registers. I do not see a reason to
> > > work in 64-bit. If we get a 64-bit value that we need to split we need
> > > to think about the endianness of our platform, which makes things more
> > > complex than just reading both values independently.
> >
> > 1) Would be nice to test on the real HW to confirm it doesn't accept 64-bit IO.
> 
> Just tested, it works. No error on the memory bus. And checked assembly
> generated was a single 64-bit instructions.
> 
> It might not work on other hardware revisions though. I can't remember
> if memory bus is changing across them.
> 
> > 2) Still I see a benefit from using lo_hi_readq() and friends directly.
> 
> So it is:
> 
> 	u32 r0 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg64);
> 	u32 r1 = readl(base_plls + pll->reg64 + sizeof(r0));
> 
> vs:
> 
> 	u64 r = lo_hi_readq(base_plls + pll->regs64);

> 	u32 r0 = r;
> 	u32 r1 = r >> 32;

It depends to the semantics of these two. How hard do they coupled to each
other semantically? I.o.w. can they always be considered as 64-bit register
with the respective bitfields? (And note FIELD_GET() here is your friend.)

> One is straight forward, the other uses an obscure helper that code
> readers must understand and follows that with bit manipulation.

[...]

> There are two errors to handle, that makes a mess out of the code.
> Having a little bit of repetition but straight forward code is nicer in
> my opinion. At least we tried!

Yes! Perhaps you can add a couple of words into commit message to explain
this detail of implementation (that code in two parts is not so identical
to be easily deduplicated).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko