On 9/6/23 15:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
Rate limiting the logs is not a bad idea. Initially I was not aware you meant about logging, hence the question. With proper firmware in CC1352, the warning will never be printed. But maybe it can cause problem with improper firmware.On 05/09/2023 18:27, Ayush Singh wrote:+static void hdlc_handle_rx_frame(struct gb_beagleplay *bg) +{ + u8 address = bg->rx_buffer[0]; + char *buffer = &bg->rx_buffer[2]; + size_t buffer_len = bg->rx_buffer_len - 4; + + switch (address) { + case ADDRESS_DBG: + hdlc_handle_dbg_frame(bg, buffer, buffer_len); + break; + case ADDRESS_GREYBUS: + hdlc_handle_greybus_frame(bg, buffer, buffer_len); + break; + default: + dev_warn(&bg->serdev->dev, "Got Unknown Frame %u", address);ratelimit Probably as well in several places with possible flooding.I don't think `hdlc_handle_rx_frame` is the correct place since it only processes a single completed HDLC frame. The more appropriate place would be `hdlc_rx` if we want to limit based on the number of HDLC frames or `gb_beagleplay_tty_receive` to limit based on the number of bytes. I would like to ask, though, why is rate limiting required here? Won't `serdev_device_ops->receive_buf` already rate limit the number of bytes somewhat? Or is it related to blocking in the `serdev_device_ops->receive_buf` callback? In the case of latter, it would probably make sense to ratelimit based on number of frames, I think.My comment might not be accurate, so I do not insist. The name of the function suggested something being called very often (on every frame), thus you would print warning also very often. Best regards, Krzysztof
Ayush Singh _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list -- greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to greybus-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|