Hi Angelo,
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 14:37 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 09/06/22 10:31, Tinghan Shen ha scritto:
> > Rename mbox according to action instead of 'mbox0' and 'mbox1'
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > index cb255a99170c..3de94765d659 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > @@ -83,7 +83,11 @@ static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM; i++) {
> > - chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "mbox%d", i);
> > + if (i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM / 2)
> > + chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rep");
> > + else
> > + chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "req");
> > +
> > if (!chan_name) {
> > ret = -ENOMEM;
> > goto out;
>
> At this point, just call them "reply" and "request", as that simply provides a
> perfectly clear explanation.
>
> Besides, I'm sorry but I really don't like this code, it's really too much
> fragile and will have to be changed entirely if a third mbox is introduced.
>
> I can suggest a cooler way:
>
> static const char * const adsp_mbox_ch_names[MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM] = { "rep", "req" };
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(adsp_mbox_ch_names); i++) {
> /* we can delete chan_name and also avoid a kfree if we do... */
>
> .... code ....
>
> adsp_chan->ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, adsp_mbox_ch_names[i]);
>
> ... etc etc ...
> }
>
> Cheers,
> Angelo
Ok, I'll update in the next version.
Thank you!
Best regards,
TingHan
