Hello Adrian,
On 2/28/24 7:21 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 20/02/24 22:10, Judith Mendez wrote:
On 2/16/24 11:09 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 7/02/24 03:15, Judith Mendez wrote:
+
+ if (!num_fails)
+ return ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX >> 1;
+
+ if (fail_window->length == ITAPDLY_LENGTH) {
+ dev_err(dev, "No passing ITAPDLY, return 0\n");
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ first_fail_start = fail_window->start;
+ last_fail_end = fail_window[num_fails - 1].end;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num_fails; i++) {
+ start_fail = fail_window[i].start;
+ end_fail = fail_window[i].end;
+ pass_length = start_fail - (prev_fail_end + 1);
+
+ if (pass_length > pass_window.length) {
+ pass_window.start = prev_fail_end + 1;
+ pass_window.length = pass_length;
+ }
+ prev_fail_end = end_fail;
+ }
+
+ if (!circular_buffer)
+ pass_length = ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX - last_fail_end;
+ else
+ pass_length = ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX - last_fail_end + first_fail_start;
+
+ if (pass_length > pass_window.length) {
+ pass_window.start = last_fail_end + 1;
+ pass_window.length = pass_length;
+ }
+
+ if (!circular_buffer)
+ itap = pass_window.start + (pass_window.length >> 1);
+ else
+ itap = (pass_window.start + (pass_window.length >> 1)) % ITAPDLY_LENGTH;
+
+ return (itap < 0 || itap > ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX ? 0 : itap);
Parentheses are not needed where they are but putting
them around the condition would make it more readable e.g.
return (itap < 0 || itap > ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX) ? 0 : itap;
However (itap < 0) is not possible because itap is an unsigned type
and if (itap > ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX) then maybe it would be better
to return ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX
You are right about itap < 0, thanks will fix.
About itap > ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX, this is an error. Why
return ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX instead of 0?
It doesn't matter. Just if a value has a better chance to work
if the calculation fails, like maybe ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX / 2, but
presumably it should not fail.
Ok, ITAPDLY_LAST_INDEX / sounds good to me, I will add this instead.
Thanks,
~ Judith
