On 14 April 2017 at 09:28, Sean Wang <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi PrasannaKumar,
>
> Add my comments inline
>
>>
>> Use readl_poll_timeout_atomic's return value or -EIO instead of
>> !!ready. This will simplify mtk_rng_read.
>>
>
> !!ready provided is in order to let blocking/non-blocking case could
> share same code path. And readl_poll_timeout_atomic only handles
> blocking case.
Missed this point. Makes sense. My previous comment about return value
in mtk_rng_read is invalid as I based it on a wrong assumption.
>
>> > +static int mtk_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max, bool wait)
>> > +{
>> > + struct mtk_rng *priv = to_mtk_rng(rng);
>> > + int retval = 0;
>> > +
>> > + while (max >= sizeof(u32)) {
>> > + if (!mtk_rng_wait_ready(rng, wait))
>> > + break;
>> > +
>> > + *(u32 *)buf = readl(priv->base + RNG_DATA);
>> > + retval += sizeof(u32);
>> > + buf += sizeof(u32);
>> > + max -= sizeof(u32);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (unlikely(wait && max))
>> > + dev_warn(priv->dev, "timeout might be not properly set\n");
>>
>> Is this really necessary? Better to choose proper timeout than
>> providing this warning message. In rare cases if the timeout could
>> occur due to some reason (may be a hardware fault) print appropriate
>> warning message.
>
> It is good, I will choose the proper timeout and remove the log in the
> next one.
>
>>
>> > + return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;
>> > +}
>>
>> Set retavl to mtk_rng_wait_ready and return retval.
>>
>
> Maybe i didn't get your points exactly. Adding some explanation about
> thoughts here.
>
> "return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;" I use can also help handling
> the both cases in one line which i think is elegant enough.
>
> And retval is accumulated with each round if some data's existing in
> hardware, so we don't return the value from mtk_rng_wait_ready().
retval can be 0 only when mkt_rng_wait_ready fails, returning 0 when
wait is true is confusing. Expected return value when 0 bytes is read
from device and wait is true is not clearly documented.
"return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;" is also fine.
Overall the code looks good to me. You can add:
Reviewed-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@xxxxxxxxx>.
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
