On 21.02.2025 16:01:07, Ming Yu wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 於 2025年2月7日 週五 下午8:15寫道：
> >
> > > +static irqreturn_t nct6694_can_irq(int irq, void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct net_device *ndev = data;
> > > + struct nct6694_can_priv *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > > + struct nct6694_can_event *evt = priv->event;
> > > + struct nct6694_cmd_header cmd_hd = {
> > > + .mod = NCT6694_CAN_MOD,
> > > + .cmd = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT,
> > > + .sel = NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_SEL(priv->can_idx, NCT6694_CAN_EVENT_MASK),
> > > + .len = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(priv->event))
> > > + };
> > > + irqreturn_t handled = IRQ_NONE;
> > > + int can_idx = priv->can_idx;
> > > + int ret;
> >
> > it would make sense to have a event pointer here instead of the can_idx?
> >
> > const struct nct6694_can_event *event = &priv->event[priv->can_idx];
> >
> The CAN Event command always returns 16bytes: the first 8 bytes
> correspond to the CAN0 event, and the last 8 bytes correspond to the
> CAN1 event. Therefore, the event pointer here refers to both event
> buffers.
Yes, but in the following code uses "priv->event[can_idx]" several
times, this is why I proposed to have a dedicated "struct
nct6694_can_event *event" variable.
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
