On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:45 PM Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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"? :) > > > >> 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) > > I made the relevant changes to satisfy you request but the results were > fine for Venus v3 and wrong on v1. So I'd propose to postpone this > change and fix it with follow up patches because I don't want miss the > next merge window. So far the supported venus firmware versions are fine > with the current parser implementation. > > What you think? Fair enough. Generally with the design of those metadata, fixing this problem seems to be quite non-trivial. Let's keep it as is for now. Best regards, Tomasz
