[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] xen/arm: vpl011: drop redundancy in mmio_write/read
Hi, On 29/11/2022 03:39, Jiamei Xie wrote: This commit is to drop redundancy in the function vpl011_mmio_write and vpl011_mmio_read: - In vpl011_mmio_read switch block, all cases have a return. So the outside one can be removed. - Each switch case checks access by the same if statments. So we can just use one and put it before the switch block. - The goto label bad_width and read_as_zero is used only once, put the code directly Signed-off-by: Jiamei Xie <jiamei.xie@xxxxxxx> --- xen/arch/arm/vpl011.c | 66 +++++++++++++------------------------------ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/vpl011.c b/xen/arch/arm/vpl011.c index 1bf803fc1f..80b859baed 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/vpl011.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/vpl011.c @@ -354,11 +354,15 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_read(struct vcpu *v, struct domain *d = v->domain; unsigned long flags;+ if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) { As I pointed out in the previous version, we don't know the size of the registers for the one not described in the SBSA UART. So I don't think this check should be consolidated. Also, coding style: if ( .... ) { + gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "vpl011: bad read width %d r%d offset %#08x\n", + dabt.size, dabt.reg, vpl011_reg); + return 0; + } + switch ( vpl011_reg ) { case DR: - if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - if ( vpl011->backend_in_domain ) *r = vreg_reg32_extract(vpl011_read_data(d), info); else @@ -366,31 +370,23 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_read(struct vcpu *v, return 1;case RSR:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - /* It always returns 0 as there are no physical errors. */ *r = 0; return 1;case FR:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); *r = vreg_reg32_extract(vpl011->uartfr, info); VPL011_UNLOCK(d, flags); return 1;case RIS:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); *r = vreg_reg32_extract(vpl011->uartris, info); VPL011_UNLOCK(d, flags); return 1;case MIS:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); *r = vreg_reg32_extract(vpl011->uartris & vpl011->uartimsc, info); @@ -398,40 +394,25 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_read(struct vcpu *v, return 1;case IMSC:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); *r = vreg_reg32_extract(vpl011->uartimsc, info); VPL011_UNLOCK(d, flags); return 1;case ICR:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - /* Only write is valid. */ return 0;default:gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "vpl011: unhandled read r%d offset %#08x\n", dabt.reg, vpl011_reg); - goto read_as_zero; - } - - return 1; - -read_as_zero: In general, we don't want to introduce and remove the same code within a series. If you don't want to keep read_as_zero, then you should not introduce it. However... I think using the read_as_zero label could still be beneficial to reduce the numbers of lines where the registers are RAZ (e.g. default, RSR...). - if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); - *r = 0; - VPL011_UNLOCK(d, flags); - return 1; - -bad_width: - gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "vpl011: bad read width %d r%d offset %#08x\n", - dabt.size, dabt.reg, vpl011_reg); - return 0;+ /* Read as zero */+ VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); + *r = 0; + VPL011_UNLOCK(d, flags); + return 1; + } }static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v,@@ -446,14 +427,18 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, struct domain *d = v->domain; unsigned long flags;- switch ( vpl011_reg )+ if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) { + gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "vpl011: bad write width %d r%d offset %#08x\n", + dabt.size, dabt.reg, vpl011_reg); + return 0; + } Same remarks as for the read part. + + switch ( vpl011_reg ) { case DR: { uint32_t data = 0;- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width;- vreg_reg32_update(&data, r, info); data &= 0xFF; if ( vpl011->backend_in_domain ) @@ -464,8 +449,6 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, }case RSR: /* Nothing to clear. */- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - return 1;case FR:@@ -474,8 +457,6 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, goto write_ignore;case IMSC:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); vreg_reg32_update(&vpl011->uartimsc, r, info); vpl011_update_interrupt_status(v->domain); @@ -483,8 +464,6 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, return 1;case ICR:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; - VPL011_LOCK(d, flags); vreg_reg32_clearbits(&vpl011->uartris, r, info); vpl011_update_interrupt_status(d); @@ -498,14 +477,7 @@ static int vpl011_mmio_write(struct vcpu *v, }write_ignore:- if ( !vpl011_reg32_check_access(dabt) ) goto bad_width; return 1; - -bad_width: - gprintk(XENLOG_ERR, "vpl011: bad write width %d r%d offset %#08x\n", - dabt.size, dabt.reg, vpl011_reg); - return 0; - }static const struct mmio_handler_ops vpl011_mmio_handler = { -- Julien Grall
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |