Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline. On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 1:43 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:30:54 -0800 > Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Replace cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status() with cros_ec_send_cmd_msg() > > which does the message buffer setup and cleanup. > > > > Signed-off-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > In a series like this, make sure that patch 1 with the actual code being > pulled out is sent to everyone. Looking at what we have here, this > doesn't seem to fit well at all for one case, and I'm can't say the > other case shows much advantage either. Sorry about that. I'll be sure to add maintainers to Patch 1 in the next versions. I tried to follow : https://lwn.net/Articles/585782/ , but I think the script might not be suited to this use case. > > Jonathan > > > --- > > .../cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c | 43 +++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c > > index 81a7f692de2f37..f92032e97a84d7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/iio/common/cros_ec_sensors/cros_ec_sensors_core.c > > @@ -31,24 +31,16 @@ static int cros_ec_get_host_cmd_version_mask(struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev, > > u16 cmd_offset, u16 cmd, u32 *mask) > > { > > int ret; > > - struct { > > - struct cros_ec_command msg; > > - union { > > - struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions params; > > - struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions resp; > > - }; > > - } __packed buf = { > > - .msg = { > > - .command = EC_CMD_GET_CMD_VERSIONS + cmd_offset, > > - .insize = sizeof(struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions), > > - .outsize = sizeof(struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions) > > - }, > > - .params = {.cmd = cmd} > > - }; > > - > > - ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(ec_dev, &buf.msg); > > + struct ec_params_get_cmd_versions params = {0}; > > + struct ec_response_get_cmd_versions resp = {0}; > > + > > + params.cmd = cmd; > Use c99 element setting to set this directly rather than zeroing > explicitly then setting the element. > > Something like. > > struct ec_params_get_cmde_versions params = { > .cmd = cmd; > }; Noted. > > > + ret = cros_ec_send_cmd_msg(ec_dev, 0, > > + EC_CMD_GET_CMD_VERSIONS + cmd_offset, > > + ¶ms, sizeof(params), > > + &resp, sizeof(resp)); > > if (ret >= 0) > > - *mask = buf.resp.version_mask; > > + *mask = resp.version_mask; > > return ret; > > } > > > > @@ -164,15 +156,22 @@ int cros_ec_motion_send_host_cmd(struct cros_ec_sensors_core_state *state, > > u16 opt_length) > > { > > int ret; > > + struct cros_ec_command *msg = state->msg; > > With this change the code becomes less readable and needs a comment to explain > why it is doing something odd. Either you need to figure out how to > make this fit properly such that the comment is not needed, or leave > the code alone. Noted. Perhaps we can use cros_ec_cmd_xfer() instead of cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(). That I think will keep readability the same and remove the need for comments. > > > > > if (opt_length) > > - state->msg->insize = min(opt_length, state->ec->max_response); > > + msg->insize = min(opt_length, state->ec->max_response); > > else > > - state->msg->insize = state->ec->max_response; > > + msg->insize = state->ec->max_response; > > > > - memcpy(state->msg->data, &state->param, sizeof(state->param)); > > - > > - ret = cros_ec_cmd_xfer_status(state->ec, state->msg); > > + /* > > + * In order to not disrupt the usage of struct cros_ec_command *msg, > > + * which is defined higher up in the call stack, we pass in its > > + * members to cros_ec_send_cmd_msg, instead of removing it at all > > + * calling locations. > > + */ > > + ret = cros_ec_send_cmd_msg(state->ec, msg->version, msg->command, > > + &state->param, sizeof(state->param), > > + msg->data, msg->insize); > > if (ret < 0) > > return ret; > > >
