Hi Tomasz, On 07/02/2018 01:05 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:59 PM Stanimir Varbanov > <stanimir.varbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Tomasz, >> >> On 07/02/2018 12:23 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:06 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 1:21 AM Stanimir Varbanov >>>> <stanimir.varbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Tomasz, >>>>> >>>>> On 05/24/2018 05:16 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>>> Hi Stanimir, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:08 PM Stanimir Varbanov < >>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>> + break; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + word++; >>>>>>> + words_count--; >>>>>> >>>>>> If data is at |word + 1|, shouldn’t we increment |word| by |1 + |data >>>>>> size||? >>>>> >>>>> yes, that could be possible but the firmware packets are with variable >>>>> data length and don't want to make the code so complex. >>>>> >>>>> The idea is to search for HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM* key numbers. Yes it is not >>>>> optimal but this enumeration is happen only once during driver probe. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm, do we have a guarantee that we will never find a value that >>>> matches HFI_PROPERTY_PARAM*, but would be actually just some data >>>> inside the payload? >>> >>> Ping? >> >> OK, you are right there is guarantee that we not mixing keywords and > > Did the auto-correction engine in my head got this correctly as "no > guarantee"? :) yes, your engine works better than my :) > >> data. I can make parse_* functions to return how words they consumed and >> increment 'word' pointer with consumed words. > > Yes, that or maybe just returning the pointer to the first word after > consumed data. Most of the looping functions already seem to have this > value, so it would have to be just returned. (vs having to subtract > from the start pointer) One possible issue could be with not parsed params, there I have to increment with one because the read data size is unknown. -- regards, Stan
