On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:31:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:55:21AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 09:12:23AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 08:13:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> >
> > > > scmi_common_fastchannel_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> > > > u8 describe_id, u32 message_id, u32 valid_size,
> > > > u32 domain, void __iomem **p_addr,
> > > > - struct scmi_fc_db_info **p_db, u32 *rate_limit)
> > > > + struct scmi_fc_db_info **p_db, u32 *rate_limit,
> > > > + bool skip_check)
> > >
> > > This does not look like it will scale.
> >
> > After taking a closer look, perhaps it needs to be done along these
> > lines.
> >
> > But calling the parameter 'force' or similar as Dan suggested should
> > make it more readable.
> >
> > > > {
> > > > int ret;
> > > > u32 flags;
> > > > @@ -1919,7 +1920,7 @@ scmi_common_fastchannel_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> > > >
> > > > /* Check if the MSG_ID supports fastchannel */
> > > > ret = scmi_protocol_msg_check(ph, message_id, &attributes);
> > > > - if (!ret && !MSG_SUPPORTS_FASTCHANNEL(attributes))
> > > > + if (!ret && !MSG_SUPPORTS_FASTCHANNEL(attributes) && !skip_check)
> > >
> > > Why can't you just make sure that the bit is set in attributes as I
> > > suggested? That seems like it should allow for a minimal implementation
> > > of this.
> >
> > My idea here was that you could come up with some way of abstracting
> > this so that you did not have to update every call site. Not sure how
> > feasible that is.
>
> I'm having a hard time finding your email.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Z4Dt8E7C6upVtEGV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Why does the scmi_proto_helpers_ops struct even exist? We could just
> call all these functions directly. Do we have plans to actually create
> different implementations?
>
> If we got rid of the scmi_proto_helpers_ops struct then we could just
> rename scmi_common_fastchannel_init() to __scmi_common_fastchannel_init()
> and create a default wrapper around it and a _forced() wrapper.
>
> Some other potentially stupid ideas in the spirit of brainstorming are
> that we could add a quirks parameter which takes a flag instead of a
> bool. Or we could add a quirks flag to the scmi_protocol_handle struct.
Something like that, yes. :) I didn't try to implement it, but it seems
like it should be possible implement this is a way that keeps the quirk
handling isolated.
Johan
