On 2021-12-16 12:43 PM, Lucas Tanure wrote:
ASoC and HDA will do the same cs35l41_otp_unpack, so move it to shared code
...
+static const struct cs35l41_otp_map_element_t *cs35l41_find_otp_map(u32 otp_id) +{
- int i;
- for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cs35l41_otp_map_map); i++) {
if (cs35l41_otp_map_map[i].id == otp_id)return &cs35l41_otp_map_map[i];- }
The parenthesis could be dropped.
- return NULL;
+} +int cs35l41_otp_unpack(struct device *dev, struct regmap *regmap) +{
- const struct cs35l41_otp_map_element_t *otp_map_match;
- const struct cs35l41_otp_packed_element_t *otp_map;
- int bit_offset, word_offset, ret, i;
- unsigned int bit_sum = 8;
- u32 otp_val, otp_id_reg;
- u32 *otp_mem;
- otp_mem = kmalloc_array(CS35L41_OTP_SIZE_WORDS, sizeof(*otp_mem), GFP_KERNEL);
- if (!otp_mem)
return -ENOMEM;- ret = regmap_read(regmap, CS35L41_OTPID, &otp_id_reg);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Read OTP ID failed: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- otp_map_match = cs35l41_find_otp_map(otp_id_reg);
- if (!otp_map_match) {
dev_err(dev, "OTP Map matching ID %d not found\n", otp_id_reg);ret = -EINVAL;goto err_otp_unpack;- }
This block could be understood as: assign and check. Surrounding blocks that carry similar value do not have a newline between assignment and check. My suggestion is to drop that newline here so the block looks more cohesive when compared with the rest of the function.
- ret = regmap_bulk_read(regmap, CS35L41_OTP_MEM0, otp_mem, CS35L41_OTP_SIZE_WORDS);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Read OTP Mem failed: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- otp_map = otp_map_match->map;
- bit_offset = otp_map_match->bit_offset;
- word_offset = otp_map_match->word_offset;
- ret = regmap_write(regmap, CS35L41_TEST_KEY_CTL, 0x00000055);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Write Unlock key failed 1/2: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- ret = regmap_write(regmap, CS35L41_TEST_KEY_CTL, 0x000000AA);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Write Unlock key failed 2/2: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- for (i = 0; i < otp_map_match->num_elements; i++) {
dev_dbg(dev, "bitoffset= %d, word_offset=%d, bit_sum mod 32=%d\n",bit_offset, word_offset, bit_sum % 32);if (bit_offset + otp_map[i].size - 1 >= 32) {otp_val = (otp_mem[word_offset] &GENMASK(31, bit_offset)) >> bit_offset;otp_val |= (otp_mem[++word_offset] &GENMASK(bit_offset + otp_map[i].size - 33, 0)) <<(32 - bit_offset);bit_offset += otp_map[i].size - 32;} else {otp_val = (otp_mem[word_offset] &GENMASK(bit_offset + otp_map[i].size - 1, bit_offset)) >> bit_offset;
The ')' looks off (the '>>' too), at least it does not match the convention seen in if-statement above. Choosing single convention could improve the readability.
bit_offset += otp_map[i].size;}bit_sum += otp_map[i].size;if (bit_offset == 32) {bit_offset = 0;word_offset++;}if (otp_map[i].reg != 0) {ret = regmap_update_bits(regmap, otp_map[i].reg,GENMASK(otp_map[i].shift + otp_map[i].size - 1,otp_map[i].shift),otp_val << otp_map[i].shift);if (ret < 0) {dev_err(dev, "Write OTP val failed: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;}}- }
- ret = regmap_write(regmap, CS35L41_TEST_KEY_CTL, 0x000000CC);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Write Lock key failed 1/2: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- ret = regmap_write(regmap, CS35L41_TEST_KEY_CTL, 0x00000033);
- if (ret) {
dev_err(dev, "Write Lock key failed 2/2: %d\n", ret);goto err_otp_unpack;- }
- ret = 0;
Hmm.. maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the 'ret' already '0' by the time we get here?
+err_otp_unpack:
- kfree(otp_mem);
- return ret;
+} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cs35l41_otp_unpack);