On 09/13/17 10:29, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:17:08AM +0200, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 09/12/2017 03:41 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>> Registering a notifier has required the knowledge of struct v4l2_device
>>> for the reason that sub-devices generally are registered to the
>>> v4l2_device (as well as the media device, also available through
>>> v4l2_device).
>>>
>>> This information is not available for sub-device drivers at probe time.
>>>
>>> What this patch does is that it allows registering notifiers without
>>> having v4l2_device around. Instead the sub-device pointer is stored in the
>>> notifier. Once the sub-device of the driver that registered the notifier
>>> is registered, the notifier will gain the knowledge of the v4l2_device,
>>> and the binding of async sub-devices from the sub-device driver's notifier
>>> may proceed.
>>>
>>> The root notifier's complete callback is only called when all sub-device
>>> notifiers are completed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Just two small comments (see below).
>>
>> After changing those (the first is up to you) you can add my:
>>
>> Acked-by: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks; please see my comments below.
>
> ...
>
>>> +/* Return true if all sub-device notifiers are complete, false otherwise. */
>>> +static bool v4l2_async_subdev_notifiers_complete(
>>> + struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
>>> +{
>>> + struct v4l2_subdev *sd;
>>> +
>>> + if (!list_empty(¬ifier->waiting))
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + list_for_each_entry(sd, ¬ifier->done, async_list) {
>>> + struct v4l2_async_notifier *subdev_notifier =
>>> + v4l2_async_find_subdev_notifier(sd);
>>> +
>>> + if (!subdev_notifier)
>>> + continue;
>>> +
>>> + if (!v4l2_async_subdev_notifiers_complete(subdev_notifier))
>>
>> I think it is better to change this to:
>>
>> if (subdev_notifier &&
>> !v4l2_async_subdev_notifiers_complete(subdev_notifier))
>>
>> and drop this if..continue above. That's a bit overkill in this simple case.
>>
>> It's up to you, though.
>
> Yes, makes sense.
>
> ...
>
>>> +/* Try completing a notifier. */
>>> +static int v4l2_async_notifier_try_complete(
>>> + struct v4l2_async_notifier *notifier)
>>> +{
>>> + do {
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + /* Any local async sub-devices left? */
>>> + if (!list_empty(¬ifier->waiting))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Any sub-device notifiers waiting for async subdevs
>>> + * to be bound?
>>> + */
>>> + if (!v4l2_async_subdev_notifiers_complete(notifier))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + /* Proceed completing the notifier */
>>> + ret = v4l2_async_notifier_call_complete(notifier);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Obtain notifier's parent. If there is one, repeat
>>> + * the process, otherwise we're done here.
>>> + */
>>> + } while ((notifier = notifier->parent));
>>
>> I'd change this to:
>>
>> notifier = notifier->parent;
>> } while (notifier);
>>
>> Assignment in a condition is frowned upon, and there is no need to do that
>> here.
>
> Wouldn't that equally apply to any statement with side effects? In other
> words, what you're suggesting for patch 19? :-)
I don't like it there either, but rewriting that would make the code quite a
bit longer and you enter a gray area between 'no side-effects' and 'readability'.
In cases like that I tend to accept the preference of the author of the code.
In the case of this do...while the 'no side-effects' version is just as readable
if not more so than the 'side-effect' version.
At least, that's my reasoning.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
