On 05/31/2012 10:49 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Valentin Longchamp [mailto:valentin.longch...@keymile.com] >> Sent: 31 May 2012 14:14 >> To: Prafulla Wadaskar >> Cc: holger.bru...@keymile.com; u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] kirkwood: add kirkwood_mpp_read function >> >> Hi Prafulla, >> >> On 05/31/2012 10:30 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Valentin Longchamp [mailto:valentin.longch...@keymile.com] >>>> Sent: 30 May 2012 21:12 >>>> To: Prafulla Wadaskar >>>> Cc: Valentin Longchamp; holger.bru...@keymile.com; u- >>>> b...@lists.denx.de; Prafulla Wadaskar >>>> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/4] kirkwood: add kirkwood_mpp_read function >>>> >>>> This function can be used to save current mpp state of all mpp pins >>>> given in the mpp_list argument by reading the mpp registers, in the >>>> second mpp_saved argument. >>>> >>>> A later call to kirkwood_mpp_conf function with this saved list >> will >>>> reset the mpp configuration as it was when kirkwood_mpp_read was >>>> called. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longch...@keymile.com> >>>> cc: Holger Brunck <holger.bru...@keymile.com> >>>> cc: Prafulla Wadaskar <prafu...@marvell.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/mpp.c | 41 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-kirkwood/mpp.h | 1 + >>>> 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/mpp.c >>>> b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/mpp.c >>>> index 3da6c98..9fb9aea 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/mpp.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/mpp.c >>>> @@ -80,3 +80,44 @@ void kirkwood_mpp_conf(u32 *mpp_list) >>>> debug("\n"); >>>> >>>> } >>>> + >>>> +void kirkwood_mpp_read(u32 *mpp_list, u32 *mpp_saved) >>>> +{ >>>> + u32 mpp_ctrl[MPP_NR_REGS]; >>>> + unsigned int variant_mask; >>>> + int i; >>>> + >>>> + variant_mask = kirkwood_variant(); >>>> + if (!variant_mask) >>>> + return; >>>> + >>>> + for (i = 0; i < MPP_NR_REGS; i++) { >>>> + mpp_ctrl[i] = readl(MPP_CTRL(i)); >>>> + debug(" %08x", mpp_ctrl[i]); >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + while (*mpp_list) { >>>> + unsigned int num = MPP_NUM(*mpp_list); >>>> + unsigned int sel; >>>> + int shift; >>>> + >>>> + if (num > MPP_MAX) { >>>> + debug("kirkwood_mpp_conf: invalid MPP " >>>> + "number (%u)\n", num); >>> + continue; >>>> + } >>>> + if (!(*mpp_list & variant_mask)) { >>>> + debug("kirkwood_mpp_conf: requested MPP%u config " >>>> + "unavailable on this hardware\n", num); >>>> + continue; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + shift = (num & 7) << 2; >>>> + sel = (mpp_ctrl[num / 8] >> shift) & 0xf; >>>> + *mpp_saved = num | (sel << 8) | variant_mask; >>>> + >>>> + mpp_list++; >>>> + mpp_saved++; >>>> + } >>>> +} >>>> + >>> >>> Hi Valentin >>> There is code duplication, similar code it already there in function >> kirkwood_mpp_conf(), to make it short you should use kirkwood_mpp_read >> function within kirkwood_mpp_conf >>> >> >> Not sure I understand what you mean. You want me to implement the >> kirkwood_mpp_read functionnality directly into kirkwood_mpp_conf ? > > Yes, > >> >> If this is so, it would mean that I would have to change >> kirkwood_mpp_conf "API" >> to add the second argument (mpp_saved) and then I would have to fix >> all the >> calls to this function. Is that what you mean ? > > Yes, my objective here is - how good we can optimise the code. > > I will not stretch it further, it's up to you. >
OK, I have done it. Sending v3 of the series in a few minutes. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
