On 6/15/23 18:45, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 06:19:37PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >> >> >> On 6/15/23 16:50, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:01:14AM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/14/23 17:54, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 04:12:05PM +0530, Sarannya S wrote: >>>>>> From: Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> >>>>>> Some transports like Glink support the state notifications between >>>>>> clients using flow control signals similar to serial protocol signals. >>>>>> Local glink client drivers can send and receive flow control status >>>>>> to glink clients running on remote processors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Add APIs to support sending and receiving of flow control status by >>>>>> rpmsg clients. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Kumar Singh <quic_deesin@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sarannya S <quic_sarannya@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_internal.h | 2 ++ >>>>>> include/linux/rpmsg.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>>>> 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c >>>>>> index a2207c0..e8bbe05 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_core.c >>>>>> @@ -331,6 +331,25 @@ int rpmsg_trysend_offchannel(struct rpmsg_endpoint *ept, u32 src, u32 dst, >>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rpmsg_trysend_offchannel); >>>>>> >>>>>> /** >>>>>> + * rpmsg_set_flow_control() - sets/clears serial flow control signals >>>>>> + * @ept: the rpmsg endpoint >>>>>> + * @enable: pause/resume incoming data flow >>>>> >>>>> As shown in the discussion, it's still not clear what true/false means. >>>>> Also, let's try to clarify that it's a request for the other side to do >>>>> something: >>>>> >>>>> * rpmsg_set_flow_control() - request remote to pause/resume transmission >>>>> * ... >>>>> * @enable: flow restricted >>>>> * ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PS. There's a stray space at the end of the line. >>>> >>>> The notion of flow restricted seems to me also ambiguous. It does >>>> not specify if the stream is limited in term of bandwidth or stopped. >>>> >>>> What about using XON/XOFF as specified in software flow control[1] >>>> >>>> XOFF Pause transmission >>>> XON Resume transmission >>>> >>>> or simply pause/resume definitions >>>> >>> >>> I agree, that's still ambiguous. >>> >>> I was concerned about expressing it such that the reader would assume >>> that calling this means there will be no more data coming, but there >>> might be things in the queues etc. Expressing it in terms of the state >>> of transmission is clearer. >>> >>> >>> /* >>> * rpmsg_set_flow_control() - request remote to pause/resume transmission >>> ... >>> * @enable: Pause transmission >>> ... >>> */ >>> >>> Does that sound okay and clear to you? >> >> Much better! I still have a nitpicking point :) >> What about replacing @enable variable by @pause to align the variable with the >> usage? >> /* >> * rpmsg_set_flow_control() - request remote to pause/resume transmission >> ... >> * @pause: set to 1 to pause transmission, to 0 to resume the transmission > > It's a boolean, so I think with your name change suggestion, together > with the function description, it should be clear enough what the two > states (true/false) means. > > * @pause: Pause transmission Ok for me Thanks, Arnaud > > Thanks, > Bjorn
