On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 at 01:00:02 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:30:57AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 02, 2014 at 02:52:52 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > +static int spi_map_buf(struct spi_master *master, struct device *dev,
> > > + struct sg_table *sgt, void *buf, size_t len,
> > > + enum dma_data_direction dir)
> > > +{
> > > + const bool vmalloced_buf = is_vmalloc_addr(buf);
> > > + const int desc_len = vmalloced_buf ? PAGE_SIZE : master->max_dma_len;
> >
> > You might want to rename this to "sg_chunk_max_size" or something,
> > "desc_len" doesn't make much sense here. The variable describes the
> > maximum size of one single scatterlist element.
>
> A scatterlist entry is pretty much an abstract descriptor though. I
> seem to remember looking at the name and thinking it was good that it
> was something less easily applicable to the length of the table but it
> doesn't make much odds.
It's the length of the entry, but I see your point.
> > > + const int sgs = DIV_ROUND_UP(len, desc_len);
> >
> > Looking at this, the variables could generally use a more meaningful
> > name. I think it'd be clearer to call this "num_sg_chunks" or so ?
>
> You do know where I lifted most of these variable names from, right? :P
Yeah, I don't like looking at my old code, it's always so frustrating ;-) Still,
it's a good source for learning how to NOT do things again :)
> Looking at the code again everything seems idiomatic with the naming of
> the fields inside the sg_table - I probably would apply a patch to
> rename but I wouldn't write one.
OK, makes sense.
> > > + min = min_t(size_t, len, desc_len);
> > > +
> > > + if (vmalloced_buf) {
> > > + vm_page = vmalloc_to_page(buf);
> >
> > Just curious, but shouldn't we check if buf != NULL right at the begining
> > of this function?
>
> No need, the check is outside the function along with the check that the
> controller is OK with DMAing on this transfer and so on.
OK, thank you for checking this.
> > > +static void spi_unmap_buf(struct spi_master *master, struct device
> > > *dev, + struct sg_table *sgt, enum dma_data_direction
dir)
> > > +{
> > > + if (sgt->orig_nents) {
> >
> > I don't want to nag, but why not use if (!sgt->...) return; ? This would
> > cut down one level of indent.
>
> I was looking at some stuff which might add a bit more in here if it's
> not just the core doing mappings. Not sure that's sensible though so it
> might never materialise.
OK.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
