On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM, <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018-05-18 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Rishabh Bhatnagar
>> <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +#define ACTIVATE 0x1
>>> +#define DEACTIVATE 0x2
>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_ACTIVATE 0x1
>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_DEACTIVATE 0x2
>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_ACT_TRIG 0x1
>>
>>
>> Are these bits? Perhaps BIT() ?
>>
> isn't it just better to use fixed size as u suggest in the next comment?
If the are bits, use BIT() macro.
>>> +struct llcc_slice_desc *llcc_slice_getd(u32 uid)
>>> +{
>>> + const struct llcc_slice_config *cfg;
>>> + struct llcc_slice_desc *desc;
>>> + u32 sz, count = 0;
>>> +
>>> + cfg = drv_data->cfg;
>>> + sz = drv_data->cfg_size;
>>> +
>>
>>
>>> + while (cfg && count < sz) {
>>> + if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
>>> + break;
>>> + cfg++;
>>> + count++;
>>> + }
>>> + if (cfg == NULL || count == sz)
>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>
>>
>> if (!cfg)
>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>
>> while (cfg->... != uid) {
>> cfg++;
>> count++;
>> }
>>
>> if (count == sz)
>> return ...
>>
>> Though I would rather put it to for () loop.
>>
> In each while loop iteration the cfg pointer needs to be checked for
> NULL. What if the usecase id never matches the uid passed by client
> and we keep iterating. At some point it will crash.
do {
if (!cfg || count == sz)
return ...(-ENODEV);
...
} while (...);
Though, as I said for-loop will look slightly better I think.
>>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>>> + DEACTIVATE);
>>
>>
>> Perhaps one line (~83 characters here is OK) ?
>
> The checkpatch script complains about such lines.
So what if it just 3 characters out?
>>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>>> + ACTIVATE);
>> Ditto.
>>> + attr1_cfg = bcast_off +
>>> +
>>> LLCC_TRP_ATTR1_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
>>> + attr0_cfg = bcast_off +
>>> +
>>> LLCC_TRP_ATTR0_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
>> Ditto.
>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].probe_target_ways <<
>>> + ATTR1_PROBE_TARGET_WAYS_SHIFT;
>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].fixed_size <<
>>> + ATTR1_FIXED_SIZE_SHIFT;
>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].priority <<
>>> ATTR1_PRIORITY_SHIFT;
>> foo |=
>> bar << SHIFT;
>>
>> would look slightly better.
Did you consider this option ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
