On 2019-04-13 00:59, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2019-04-03 23:05, Ray Jui wrote:
>> Change the iProc I2C driver to use the 'BIT' macro from all '1 << XXX'
>> bit operations to get rid of compiler warning and improve readability of
>> the code
>
> All? I see lots more '1 << XXX_SHIFT' matches. I might be behind though?
I verified that, and yes indeed, I was behind. That said, see below...
> Anyway, if you are cleaning up, I'm just flagging that BIT(XXX_SHIFT) looks
> a bit clunky to me. You might consider renaming all those single-bit
> XXX_SHIFT macros to simple be
>
> #define XXX BIT(<xxx>)
>
> instead of
>
> #define XXX_SHIFT <xxx>
>
> but that triggers more churn, so is obviously more error prone. You might
> not dare it?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <ray....@broadcom.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>> b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>> index 562942d0c05c..a845b8decac8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-iproc.c
>> @@ -717,7 +717,7 @@ static int bcm_iproc_i2c_xfer_single_msg(struct
>> bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c,
>>
>> /* mark the last byte */
>> if (i == msg->len - 1)
>> - val |= 1 << M_TX_WR_STATUS_SHIFT;
>> + val |= BIT(M_TX_WR_STATUS_SHIFT);
>>
>> iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, M_TX_OFFSET, val);
>> }
>> @@ -844,7 +844,7 @@ static int bcm_iproc_i2c_cfg_speed(struct
>> bcm_iproc_i2c_dev *iproc_i2c)
>>
>> iproc_i2c->bus_speed = bus_speed;
>> val = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, TIM_CFG_OFFSET);
>> - val &= ~(1 << TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT);
>> + val &= ~BIT(TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT);
>> val |= (bus_speed == 400000) << TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT;
These two statements now no longer "match". One uses BIT and the other open
codes the shift. I think that's bad. Losing the _SHIFT suffix and including
BIT in the macro expansion, as suggested above, yields:
val &= ~TIM_CFG_MODE_400;
if (bus_speed == 400000)
val |= TIM_CFG_MODE_400;
which is perhaps one more line, but also more readable IMO.
But all this is of course in deep nit-pick-territory...
Cheers,
Peter
>> iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, TIM_CFG_OFFSET, val);
>>
>> @@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ static int bcm_iproc_i2c_resume(struct device *dev)
>>
>> /* configure to the desired bus speed */
>> val = iproc_i2c_rd_reg(iproc_i2c, TIM_CFG_OFFSET);
>> - val &= ~(1 << TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT);
>> + val &= ~BIT(TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT);
>> val |= (iproc_i2c->bus_speed == 400000) << TIM_CFG_MODE_400_SHIFT;
>> iproc_i2c_wr_reg(iproc_i2c, TIM_CFG_OFFSET, val);
>>
>>
>
