RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] Mailbox: Add support for Platform Communication Channel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

> From: linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ashwin Chaugule
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 10:24 AM
> 
> Hi Lv,
> 
> On 4 September 2014 21:56, Zheng, Lv <lv.zheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);
> >> +     chan->msg_free = 0;
> >> +     chan->msg_count = 0;
> >> +     chan->active_req = NULL;
> >> +     chan->cl = cl;
> >> +     init_completion(&chan->tx_complete);
> >> +
> >> +     if (chan->txdone_method == TXDONE_BY_POLL && cl->knows_txdone)
> >
> > The tab should be a space here?
> >
> 
> Not sure where you're seeing the tab.

It is a tab here after " txdone_method".

> >> +static bool pcc_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct acpi_pcct_subspace *pcct_ss = chan->con_priv;
> >> +     struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *generic_comm_base =
> >> +             (struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *) pcct_ss->base_address;
> >> +     u16 cmd_delay = pcct_ss->min_turnaround_time;
> >
> > Should these parameters be acquired with chan-lock held?
> > Is that possible to change them during runtime?
> >
> 
> No. These parameters don't change.

OK.
Then that's up to you. :-)

> 
> >> +/* Channel lock is already held by mbox controller code. */
> >> +static int pcc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct acpi_pcct_subspace *pcct_ss = chan->con_priv;
> >> +     struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *generic_comm_base =
> >> +             (struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *) pcct_ss->base_address;
> >
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> 
> Same as above.
> 
> >> +out_err:
> >> +     return ACPI_SUCCESS(status) ? 1 : 0;
> >
> > Should the return value of 1 here be -EINVAL?
> >
> 
> I dont think it really matters, the caller returns -EINVAL anyway.

This is not a "bool" return value or "reversed bool" return value.
Why not use errno for all "int" return value across all initialization/finalization functions?
And in the caller, you can:
 +	if (ret) {
 +		pr_debug("ACPI PCC probe failed.\n");
 +		return ret;
 +	}
BTW, wasn't it better to return -ENODEV here?

Thanks
-Lv

> 
> Thanks,
> Ashwin
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f





[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux