2020-12-14 16:08:09

by Matthias Brugger

Subject: [PATCH 2/2] hwrng: iproc-rng200: Move enable/disable in separate function

From: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>

We are calling the same code for enable and disable the block in various
parts of the driver. Put that code into a new function to reduce code
duplication.

Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>

---

drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c | 37 ++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
index e106ce3c0146..3367b26085e8 100644
--- a/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
+++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
@@ -53,15 +53,26 @@ struct iproc_rng200_dev {

#define to_rng_priv(rng) container_of(rng, struct iproc_rng200_dev, rng)

-static void iproc_rng200_restart(void __iomem *rng_base)
+static void iproc_rng200_enable(void __iomem *rng_base, bool enable)
{
uint32_t val;

- /* Disable RBG */
val = ioread32(rng_base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_MASK;
- val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
+
+ if (enable)
+ val |= RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
+ else
+ val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
+
iowrite32(val, rng_base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
+}
+
+static void iproc_rng200_restart(void __iomem *rng_base)
+{
+ uint32_t val;
+
+ iproc_rng200_enable(rng_base, false);

/* Clear all interrupt status */
iowrite32(0xFFFFFFFFUL, rng_base + RNG_INT_STATUS_OFFSET);
@@ -83,11 +94,7 @@ static void iproc_rng200_restart(void __iomem *rng_base)
val &= ~RBG_SOFT_RESET;
iowrite32(val, rng_base + RBG_SOFT_RESET_OFFSET);

- /* Enable RBG */
- val = ioread32(rng_base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
- val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_MASK;
- val |= RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
- iowrite32(val, rng_base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
+ iproc_rng200_enable(rng_base, true);
}

static int iproc_rng200_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max,
@@ -154,13 +161,8 @@ static int iproc_rng200_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max,
static int iproc_rng200_init(struct hwrng *rng)
{
struct iproc_rng200_dev *priv = to_rng_priv(rng);
- uint32_t val;

- /* Setup RNG. */
- val = ioread32(priv->base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
- val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_MASK;
- val |= RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
- iowrite32(val, priv->base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
+ iproc_rng200_enable(priv->base, true);

return 0;
}
@@ -168,13 +170,8 @@ static int iproc_rng200_init(struct hwrng *rng)
static void iproc_rng200_cleanup(struct hwrng *rng)
{
struct iproc_rng200_dev *priv = to_rng_priv(rng);
- uint32_t val;

- /* Disable RNG hardware */
- val = ioread32(priv->base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
- val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_MASK;
- val &= ~RNG_CTRL_RNG_RBGEN_ENABLE;
- iowrite32(val, priv->base + RNG_CTRL_OFFSET);
+ iproc_rng200_enable(priv->base, false);
}

static int iproc_rng200_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
--
2.29.2

2020-12-14 18:42:05

by Florian Fainelli

Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hwrng: iproc-rng200: Move enable/disable in separate function

On 12/14/20 8:04 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>
>
> We are calling the same code for enable and disable the block in various
> parts of the driver. Put that code into a new function to reduce code
> duplication.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c | 37 ++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
> index e106ce3c0146..3367b26085e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/iproc-rng200.c
> @@ -53,15 +53,26 @@ struct iproc_rng200_dev {
>
> #define to_rng_priv(rng) container_of(rng, struct iproc_rng200_dev, rng)
>
> -static void iproc_rng200_restart(void __iomem *rng_base)
> +static void iproc_rng200_enable(void __iomem *rng_base, bool enable)

I would prefer naming the function iproc_rng200_enable_set() to indicate
that it sets the enable to the parameter value, this is just personal
taste, you may discard it.

> {
> uint32_t val;

Since you are refactoring this into a new function, do you mind changing
the variable to u32 to match the kernel code? With that fixed:

Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]>

Thanks!
--
Florian