[RESEND PATCH v3 5/7] PCI: dwc: all: Modify dbi accessors to access data of 4/2/1 bytes
Kishon Vijay Abraham I
kishon at ti.com
Fri Mar 10 05:04:45 PST 2017
On Friday 10 March 2017 06:26 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> On 03/10/2017 01:04 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> On Thursday 09 March 2017 08:18 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2017 07:39 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> Previously dbi accessors can be used to access data of size 4
>>>> bytes. But there might be situations (like accessing
>>>> MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL in order to set/get the number of required
>>>> MSI interrupts in EP mode) where dbi accessors must
>>>> be used to access data of size 2. This is in preparation for
>>>> adding endpoint mode support to designware driver.
>>> Hello Kishon
>>> I don't really like the idea of adding an extra argument to every existing read/write.
>>> Will not a read/write of length != 32 be quite uncommon compared to
>>> a read/write of length == 32?
>>> How about adding some defines to pcie-designware.h:
>>> #define dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, base, reg, val) dw_pcie_write_dbi(pci, base, reg, 0x4, val)
>>> #define dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, base, reg) dw_pcie_read_dbi(pci, base, reg, 0x4)
>>> That way we don't have to change every existing read/write.
>>> Is there a reason why we can't just do:
>>> vial = dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, base, MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL);
>> MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL is 0x52 (MSI capability offset + 2). I'm not sure if we can
>> do a readl that crosses the alignment boundary in all platforms. The other
>> option is to readl from "MSI capability offset + 0" and extract the last 16
>> bits. I felt this is more clear since we are interested only in the
>>> <shifting+masking the bits we need to get/set>
>>> dw_pcie_writel_dbi(pci, base, MSI_MESSAGE_CONTROL, val);
>>> Or are we going to be doing read/writes of length != 32 so often that
>>> you think that it's cleaner to have this abstraction?
>> it's used mainly for accessing configuration space header fields. Even the pci
>> core uses *pci_read_config_word* for accessing such fields.
> I see. Adding an extra size argument is a good thing then,
> since it's consistent with the pci generic code.
> However, I still think that having defines for writel/readl is a
> good thing :)
sure, having defines is fine. How about something like below (readl, readw: to
differentiate 4byte and 2 byte access?)
#define dw_pcie_readl_dbi(pci, base, reg) __dw_pcie_read_dbi(pci, base, reg, 0x4)
#define dw_pcie_readw_dbi(pci, base, reg) __dw_pcie_read_dbi(pci, base, reg, 0x2)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel