diff mbox series

[v2,1/9] i2c: designware: Add some flexiblity to the model info

Message ID 20240206145158.227254-2-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com
State New
Headers show
Series [v2,1/9] i2c: designware: Add some flexiblity to the model info | expand

Commit Message

Jarkko Nikula Feb. 6, 2024, 2:51 p.m. UTC 
From: "Michael J. Ruhl" <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>

Currently the way to identify a model is via a bit field, of which
4 bits are currently defined.

Use a shifted value to that more models can be defined.

Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Andy Shevchenko Feb. 6, 2024, 3:30 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 04:51:50PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> From: "Michael J. Ruhl" <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>
> 
> Currently the way to identify a model is via a bit field, of which
> 4 bits are currently defined.
> 
> Use a shifted value to that more models can be defined.

> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

While this is true review, internally we're still discussing
the possibility of moving to plain numbers and shift, so we
may add arrays which are indexed in model-based way.
Jarkko Nikula Feb. 9, 2024, 2:14 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 2/6/24 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 04:51:50PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>> From: "Michael J. Ruhl" <michael.j.ruhl@intel.com>
>>
>> Currently the way to identify a model is via a bit field, of which
>> 4 bits are currently defined.
>>
>> Use a shifted value to that more models can be defined.
> 
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> 
> While this is true review, internally we're still discussing
> the possibility of moving to plain numbers and shift, so we
> may add arrays which are indexed in model-based way.
> 
I was thinking I'll drop these first 3 patches in the next version and 
go back to v1 version. IMHO it's better this patchset to focus 
implementing generic polling only and not mix with cleaning up the 
semaphore or other random stuff.

So planning to go back to v1 version and take your notes for v2 7/9 and 
9/9. What would you think?
Andy Shevchenko Feb. 9, 2024, 2:25 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 04:14:37PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 2/6/24 17:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> I was thinking I'll drop these first 3 patches in the next version and go
> back to v1 version. IMHO it's better this patchset to focus implementing
> generic polling only and not mix with cleaning up the semaphore or other
> random stuff.
> 
> So planning to go back to v1 version and take your notes for v2 7/9 and 9/9.
> What would you think?

I'm fine with that.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
index a7f6f3eafad7..4e1f0924f493 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-designware-core.h
@@ -304,10 +304,10 @@  struct dw_i2c_dev {
 #define ACCESS_NO_IRQ_SUSPEND			BIT(1)
 #define ARBITRATION_SEMAPHORE			BIT(2)
 
-#define MODEL_MSCC_OCELOT			BIT(8)
-#define MODEL_BAIKAL_BT1			BIT(9)
-#define MODEL_AMD_NAVI_GPU			BIT(10)
-#define MODEL_WANGXUN_SP			BIT(11)
+#define MODEL_MSCC_OCELOT			(1 << 8)
+#define MODEL_BAIKAL_BT1			(2 << 8)
+#define MODEL_AMD_NAVI_GPU			(3 << 8)
+#define MODEL_WANGXUN_SP			(4 << 8)
 #define MODEL_MASK				GENMASK(11, 8)
 
 /*