Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver

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

 



On 2018-05-22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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.
Is this fine?
for (count = 0; count < sz; count++) {
   if (!cfg)
	return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
   if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
	break;
   cfg++;
}
if (count == sz)
   return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);


+       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?

Other reviewers sometimes are not okay if the checkpatch complains.
Because I have gotten many reviews previously concerning about line
length. Not sure how to proceed here.

+       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 ?
Yes, forgot to mention.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux