On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 AM Eduardo Valentin <eduval@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hey Andry,
>
> Long time no seeing :-)
True!
> > > +#define MQ_MSGBUF_SIZE CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE_MQUEUE_MESSAGE_SIZE
> > > +#define MQ_QUEUE_SIZE CONFIG_I2C_SLAVE_MQUEUE_QUEUE_SIZE
> >
> > > +#define MQ_QUEUE_NEXT(x) (((x) + 1) & (MQ_QUEUE_SIZE - 1))
> >
> > Also possible ((x + 1) % ..._SIZE)
>
> Right.. but I suppose the original idea is to avoid divisions on the hotpath.
>
> So, I am actually fine with the limitation of only using power of 2.
The original code implies that anyway, so, my proposal doesn't
restrict it any farther.
> > > + {
> > > + .compatible = "i2c-slave-mqueue",
> > > + },
> >
> > > + { },
> >
> > No need for comma here.
>
> It does not hurt to have it either :-)
It's just a protection against some weird cases of adding entries
behind the terminator.
> > > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match),
> >
> > Wouldn't compiler warn you due to unused data?
> > Perhaps drop of_match_ptr() for good...
>
>
> Not sure what you meant here. I dont see any compiler warning.
> Also, of_match_ptr seams to be well spread in the kernel.
If this will be compiled with CONFIG_OF=n...
Though I didn't check all dependencies to see if it even possible. In
any case of_match_ptr() is redundant in both cases here.
Either you need to protect i2c_slave_mqueue_of_match with #ifdef
CONFIG_OF, or drop the macro use.
P.S. Taking into account the last part, I would wait for v7 with that
fixed followed by fixing other nits.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
