[U-Boot] [PATCH v6 01/11] wait_bit: add big endian version of wait_for_bit function

Jagan Teki jagannadh.teki at gmail.com
Sun Jan 7 18:08:58 UTC 2018


On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:31 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas
<noltari at gmail.com> wrote:
> Add 8/16/32 bits and BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit.
> This is needed for reading registers that are not aligned to 32 bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
> ---
>  v6: Introduce changes suggested by Jagan Teki:
>  - Switch to wait_for_bit instead of infinite loop.
>
>  include/wait_bit.h | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/wait_bit.h b/include/wait_bit.h
> index 06ad43a122..47891fa75c 100644
> --- a/include/wait_bit.h
> +++ b/include/wait_bit.h
> @@ -69,5 +69,49 @@ static inline int wait_for_bit(const char *prefix, const u32 *reg,
>         return -ETIMEDOUT;
>  }
>
> +#define BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(sfx, type, read)                            \
> +                                                                       \
> +static inline int wait_for_bit_##sfx(const char *prefix,               \
> +                                    const u32 *reg,                    \
> +                                    const type mask,                   \
> +                                    const bool set,                    \
> +                                    const unsigned int timeout_ms,     \
> +                                    const bool breakable)              \
> +{                                                                      \
> +       type val;                                                       \
> +       unsigned long start = get_timer(0);                             \
> +                                                                       \
> +       while (1) {                                                     \
> +               val = read(reg);                                        \
> +                                                                       \
> +               if (!set)                                               \
> +                       val = ~val;                                     \
> +                                                                       \
> +               if ((val & mask) == mask)                               \
> +                       return 0;                                       \
> +                                                                       \
> +               if (get_timer(start) > timeout_ms)                      \
> +                       break;                                          \
> +                                                                       \
> +               if (breakable && ctrlc()) {                             \
> +                       puts("Abort\n");                                \
> +                       return -EINTR;                                  \
> +               }                                                       \
> +                                                                       \
> +               udelay(1);                                              \
> +               WATCHDOG_RESET();                                       \
> +       }                                                               \
> +                                                                       \
> +       debug("%s: Timeout (reg=%p mask=%x wait_set=%i)\n", prefix,     \
> +             reg, mask, set);                                          \
> +                                                                       \
> +       return -ETIMEDOUT;                                              \
> +}
> +
> +BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(8, u8, readb)
> +BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le16, u16, readw)
> +BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(be16, u16, readw_be)
> +BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le32, u32, readl)

look like existing wait_for_bit is of this type, better add these
macros to existing code and update wait_for_bit from callers if less
changes or add macro to redirect wait_for_bit_le32 but I prefer first
one because this even need to update in future.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list