Hi Brian,
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:36:27 -0700
Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:46:37AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Most of the logic to read/write pages with the HW ECC engine enabled
> > is common to the HW_ECC and NAND_ECC_HW_SYNDROME scheme.
> > Refactor the code to avoid code duplication.
>
> Hmm, a benign commit description to describe a somewhat complicated
> patch. This seems to do several different types of refactoring all at
> once, and it makes it a bit hard to review. Can you perhaps refactor
> this into 2 or more patches?
Fair enough, I'll try to split it in several pieces.
> e.g., I think the NFC_USER_DATA_TO_BUF()
> stuff can be orthogonal from the introduction of
> sunxi_nfc_hw_ecc_read_chunk() and sunxi_nfc_hw_ecc_read_extra_oob().
Yes, it is, even if I doubt removing this small piece of code can make
the patch more readable ;-).
>
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c | 404
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> > 1 file changed, 212 insertions(+), 192 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> > index dc44435..640b96c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nand.c
> > @@ -159,6 +159,13 @@
> > /* NFC_USER_DATA helper macros */
> > #define NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA(buf) ((buf)[0] | ((buf)[1] << 8) | \
> > ((buf)[2] << 16) | ((buf)[3] << 24))
> > +#define NFC_USER_DATA_TO_BUF(buf, val) \
> > + { \
> > + (buf)[0] = val; \
> > + (buf)[1] = val >> 8; \
> > + (buf)[2] = val >> 16; \
> > + (buf)[3] = val >> 24; \
> > + }
>
> Two things about this macro:
>
> 1) you should probably wrap 'val' in parentheses
Yep ...
>
> 2) the use of 'val' 4 times in this macro means it will be evaluated 4
> times; this *can* be OK, except the 'val' parameter as used in context
> is actually a register read (readl()). Is this intentional? Anyway,
> such a construct kinda hides the actual behavior, whether or not it's
> intentional.
... and no, it's not intentional.
>
> To kill off all concerns, perhaps this should be a static inline
> function instead. And we might do the same with NFC_BUF_TO_USER_DATA()
> then, to match.
I like this idea (I'll use lower cases if I convert them to inline
functions).
Best Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
