Hi Biju, On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 14:50, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 14:35, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 at 12:36, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Even though XSPI and RPCIF has different register layout, reuse the > > > > code by adding wrapper functions to support both XSPI and RPC-IF. > > > > > > > > While at it, replace error check for pm_runtime_resume_and_get() as > > > > it can return positive value as well. > > > > > > While the change is fine for me, the function cannot return strict > > > positive values: > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.13.7/source/include/linux/pm_runti > > > me.h#L418 > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/memory/renesas-rpc-if.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/memory/renesas-rpc-if.c > > > > > > > @@ -519,20 +543,15 @@ static void memcpy_fromio_readw(void *to, > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > -ssize_t rpcif_dirmap_read(struct device *dev, u64 offs, size_t len, > > > > void *buf) > > > > +static ssize_t rpcif_dirmap_read_helper(struct rpcif_priv *rpc, u64 offs, > > > > + size_t len, void *buf) > > > > Seeing how none of these helper functions are reused for xSPI in the next patch, I think they should > > be named differently. Perhaps *_impl()? > > You mean, rpcif_dirmap_read_impl() and xspi_dirmap_read_impl()? Indeed. > __rpcif_dirmap_read() and xspi_dirmap_read() That is another option. But the former looks more attractive to me because of symmetry. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
