On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52:42PM +0200, Mateusz Kulikowski wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_eeprom.c
> b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_eeprom.c
> index ed54193..fe4e282 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_eeprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_eeprom.c
> @@ -25,115 +25,72 @@
> #include "rtl_core.h"
> #include "rtl_eeprom.h"
>
> -static void eprom_cs(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> +static void _rtl92e_gpio_set(struct net_device *dev, int no, int val)
I don't like the new name very much. I don't like the underscore. Also
set kind of implies set vs clear. Maybe:
static void rtl92e_gpio_write_bit(struct net_device *dev, int bit, bool val)
> {
> - if (bit)
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - (1 << EPROM_CS_SHIFT) |
> - rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> + u8 reg = rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD);
> +
> + if (val)
> + reg |= 1 << no;
> else
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD) &
> - ~(1<<EPROM_CS_SHIFT));
> + reg &= ~(1 << no);
>
> + rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD, reg);
> udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> }
>
> -
> -static void eprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev)
> +static int _rtl92e_gpio_get(struct net_device *dev, int no)
static bool rtl92e_gpio_get_bit(struct net_device *dev, int bit)
> {
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - (1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT) | rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> - udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD) & ~(1<<EPROM_CK_SHIFT));
> - udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> -}
> + u8 reg = rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD);
>
> + return (reg >> no) & 0x1;
> +}
>
> -static void eprom_w(struct net_device *dev, short bit)
> +static void _rtl92e_eeprom_ck_cycle(struct net_device *dev)
> {
> - if (bit)
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD, (1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT) |
> - rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD));
> - else
> - rtl92e_writeb(dev, EPROM_CMD,
> - rtl92e_readb(dev, EPROM_CMD) &
> - ~(1<<EPROM_W_SHIFT));
> -
> - udelay(EPROM_DELAY);
> + _rtl92e_gpio_set(dev, EPROM_CK_BIT, 1);
> + _rtl92e_gpio_set(dev, EPROM_CK_BIT, 0);
The old cycle function had some delays built in. You're probably right
that they aren't needed, but why do you think so?
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
