[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915/gmbus: Reset the controller on initialisation
Chris Wilson
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Tue Apr 5 23:26:55 CEST 2011
On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:59:58 -0700, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:24:18 +0100, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> > Toggle the Software Clear Interrupt bit which resets the controller to
> > clear any prior BUS_ERROR condition before we begin to use the
> > controller in earnest.
>
> We do this in two places now, do we want to share the code?
>
> > + int reg_offset;
> > +
> > + reg_offset = 0;
> > if (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev))
> > - I915_WRITE(PCH_GMBUS0, 0);
> > - else
> > - I915_WRITE(GMBUS0, 0);
> > + reg_offset = PCH_GMBUS0 - GMBUS0;
> > +
> > + /* First reset the controller by toggling the Sw Clear Interrupt. */
> > + I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, GMBUS_SW_CLR_INT);
> > + I915_WRITE(GMBUS1 + reg_offset, 0);
> > +
> > + /* Then mark the controller as disabled. */
> > + I915_WRITE(GMBUS0 + reg_offset, 0);
>
> That's really ugly register addressing, but it looks like a common idiom
> in this file...
I'd change the lot for a cleaner method, the best I thought of was a
change of names for the constants/variables.
IMO,
static void i915_gmbus_write(struct drm_device *dev, int reg, int value)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
I915_WRITE(reg + (HAS_PCH_SPLIT(dev) ? PCH_GMBUS0 : GMBUS0), value);
}
expands to something dreadful.
But with a
#define GMBUS_WRITE(reg, value) i915_gmbus_write(dev, reg, value)
we go from
I915_WRITE(GMBUS0 + reg_offset, 0);
to
GMBUS_WRITE(0, 0);
I would still prefer GMBUS_WRITE(GMBUS0, 0); though.
As the patch only addresses a theoretical bug, we can punt the meat of the
patch till later and attack the stylistic points first. (Obviously through
-next.)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list