Hi PrasannaKumar,
Add my comments inline
On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 14:09 +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Mostly looks good, have few minor comments.
>
> On 13 April 2017 at 12:35, <sean.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static bool mtk_rng_wait_ready(struct hwrng *rng, bool wait)
> > +{
> > + struct mtk_rng *priv = to_mtk_rng(rng);
> > + int ready;
> > +
> > + ready = readl(priv->base + RNG_CTRL) & RNG_READY;
> > + if (!ready && wait)
> > + readl_poll_timeout_atomic(priv->base + RNG_CTRL, ready,
> > + ready & RNG_READY, USEC_POLL,
> > + TIMEOUT_POLL);
> > + return !!ready;
> > +}
>
> Use readl_poll_timeout_atomic's return value or -EIO instead of
> !!ready. This will simplify mtk_rng_read.
>
!!ready provided is in order to let blocking/non-blocking case could
share same code path. And readl_poll_timeout_atomic only handles
blocking case.
> > +static int mtk_rng_read(struct hwrng *rng, void *buf, size_t max, bool wait)
> > +{
> > + struct mtk_rng *priv = to_mtk_rng(rng);
> > + int retval = 0;
> > +
> > + while (max >= sizeof(u32)) {
> > + if (!mtk_rng_wait_ready(rng, wait))
> > + break;
> > +
> > + *(u32 *)buf = readl(priv->base + RNG_DATA);
> > + retval += sizeof(u32);
> > + buf += sizeof(u32);
> > + max -= sizeof(u32);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(wait && max))
> > + dev_warn(priv->dev, "timeout might be not properly set\n");
>
> Is this really necessary? Better to choose proper timeout than
> providing this warning message. In rare cases if the timeout could
> occur due to some reason (may be a hardware fault) print appropriate
> warning message.
It is good, I will choose the proper timeout and remove the log in the
next one.
>
> > + return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;
> > +}
>
> Set retavl to mtk_rng_wait_ready and return retval.
>
Maybe i didn't get your points exactly. Adding some explanation about
thoughts here.
"return retval || !wait ? retval : -EIO;" I use can also help handling
the both cases in one line which i think is elegant enough.
And retval is accumulated with each round if some data's existing in
hardware, so we don't return the value from mtk_rng_wait_ready().
> Regards,
> Prasanna
thanks for all your reviewing and suggestion
Sean
