On 2018-05-22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM, <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2018-05-18 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Rishabh Bhatnagar
<rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+#define ACTIVATE 0x1
+#define DEACTIVATE 0x2
+#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_ACTIVATE 0x1
+#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_DEACTIVATE 0x2
+#define ACT_CTRL_ACT_TRIG 0x1
Are these bits? Perhaps BIT() ?
isn't it just better to use fixed size as u suggest in the next
comment?
If the are bits, use BIT() macro.
+struct llcc_slice_desc *llcc_slice_getd(u32 uid)
+{
+ const struct llcc_slice_config *cfg;
+ struct llcc_slice_desc *desc;
+ u32 sz, count = 0;
+
+ cfg = drv_data->cfg;
+ sz = drv_data->cfg_size;
+
+ while (cfg && count < sz) {
+ if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
+ break;
+ cfg++;
+ count++;
+ }
+ if (cfg == NULL || count == sz)
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
if (!cfg)
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
while (cfg->... != uid) {
cfg++;
count++;
}
if (count == sz)
return ...
Though I would rather put it to for () loop.
In each while loop iteration the cfg pointer needs to be checked for
NULL. What if the usecase id never matches the uid passed by client
and we keep iterating. At some point it will crash.
do {
if (!cfg || count == sz)
return ...(-ENODEV);
...
} while (...);
Though, as I said for-loop will look slightly better I think.
Is this fine?
for (count = 0; count < sz; count++) {
if (!cfg)
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
break;
cfg++;
}
if (count == sz)
return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+ ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
+ DEACTIVATE);
Perhaps one line (~83 characters here is OK) ?
The checkpatch script complains about such lines.
So what if it just 3 characters out?
Other reviewers sometimes are not okay if the checkpatch complains.
Because I have gotten many reviews previously concerning about line
length. Not sure how to proceed here.
+ ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
+ ACTIVATE);
Ditto.
+ attr1_cfg = bcast_off +
+
LLCC_TRP_ATTR1_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
+ attr0_cfg = bcast_off +
+
LLCC_TRP_ATTR0_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
Ditto.
+ attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].probe_target_ways <<
+ ATTR1_PROBE_TARGET_WAYS_SHIFT;
+ attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].fixed_size <<
+ ATTR1_FIXED_SIZE_SHIFT;
+ attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].priority <<
ATTR1_PRIORITY_SHIFT;
foo |=
bar << SHIFT;
would look slightly better.
Did you consider this option ?
Yes, forgot to mention.
--
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
