On Tue, 05 Oct 2021 14:15:45 +0100,
Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I dislike this approach. It adds another magic number which is just
> causing issues. Please read commit message for patch 11/13 where we
> describe why such magic constants are bad and already caused lot of
> issues in this driver.
As I said, feel free to write something better.
>
> > > > /* Process MSI interrupts */
> > > > if (isr0_status & PCIE_ISR0_MSI_INT_PENDING)
> > > > advk_pcie_handle_msi(pcie);
> > > >
> > > > /* Process legacy interrupts */
> > > > - for (i = 0; i < PCI_NUM_INTX; i++) {
> > > > - if (!(isr1_status & PCIE_ISR1_INTX_ASSERT(i)))
> > > > - continue;
> > > > -
> > > > + for_each_set_bit(i, &isr1_status, PCI_NUM_INTX) {
> > > > advk_writel(pcie, PCIE_ISR1_INTX_ASSERT(i),
> > > > PCIE_ISR1_REG);
> > >
> > > 1. what you are doing here is code cleanup. We are currently in the
> > > state where we have lots of fixes for this driver, which we are
> > > hoping will go also to stable.
> >
> > Yes, it is code cleanup. Because I don't find this patch to be very
> > good, TBH. As for going into stable, that's not relevant for this
> > discussion.
> >
> > > Some of them depend on these changes.
> > > Can we please first apply those fixes (we want to send them in
> > > batches to avoid sending 60 patchs in one series, since last time
> > > nobody wanted to review all of that) and do this afterwards?
> >
> > It would be better to start with patches that are in a better
> > shape. After all, this is what the code review process is about. This
> > isn't "just take my patches".
> >
> > > 2. you are throwing away lower 8 bits of isr1_status. We have follow-up
> > > patches (not in this series, but in another batch which we want to
> > > send after this) that will be using those lower 8 bits, so we do not
> > > want to throw away them now.
> >
> > I'm discarding these bits because *in isolation*, that's the correct
> > thing to do. Feel free to propose a better patch that doesn't discard
> > these bits and still makes the code more palatable.
>
> The code pattern in this function is: compose irs*_status variable and
> then compare it with register macros defined at the top of driver. Each
> bit in this register represent some event and for each event there is
> simple macro to match.
>
> So with your proposed change it would break all macros (as they are
> going to be shifted by magic constant) and then this code disallow
> access to events represented by low bits. And also it makes code pattern
> different for isr0_status and isr1_status variables which is very
> confusing and probably source for introduction of new bugs.
Read what I have said: I'm suggesting changes based on this patch *in
isolation*. I don't see any other related patch in my inbox (nor do I
want to receive any). Feel free to suggest something better (that's
the third time I write this...).
> Also the whole early-return optimization can be removed as it does not
> change functionality. So we will do so.
>
> But we do not agree with the lower 8 bit discard of the isr1_status
> variable as explained above.
>
> So if we add the explanation to commit message and drop the early
> return, would it be ok?
Do what you want. I have no interest in this particular piece of code,
and only replied to Lorenzo's request. It doesn't change what I think
of this patch, but I have too much on my plate to get dragged into
sterile arguments.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
