Thanks for the review comments,
On 02/01/18 00:19, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Thu 14 Dec 09:33 PST 2017, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
+static inline int q6dsp_map_channels(u8 *ch_map, int ch)
+{
+ memset(ch_map, 0, PCM_FORMAT_MAX_NUM_CHANNEL);
This implies that ch_map is always an array of
PCM_FORMAT_MAX_NUM_CHANNEL elements. As such it would be better to
express this in the prototype; i.e u8 ch_map[PCM_FORMAT_MAX_NUM_CHANNEL]
Yep, Will do that.
+
+ if (ch == 1) {
This is a switch statement.
Yes, makes more sense.
+ ch_map[0] = PCM_CHANNEL_FC;
+ } else if (ch == 2) {
[..]
+struct adsp_err_code {
+ int lnx_err_code;
Indentation, and these could be given more succinct names.
+ char *adsp_err_str;
+};
+
+static struct adsp_err_code adsp_err_code_info[ADSP_ERR_MAX+1] = {
+ { 0, ADSP_EOK_STR},
+ { -ENOTRECOVERABLE, ADSP_EFAILED_STR},
+ { -EINVAL, ADSP_EBADPARAM_STR},
+ { -ENOSYS, ADSP_EUNSUPPORTED_STR},
+ { -ENOPROTOOPT, ADSP_EVERSION_STR},
+ { -ENOTRECOVERABLE, ADSP_EUNEXPECTED_STR},
+ { -ENOTRECOVERABLE, ADSP_EPANIC_STR},
+ { -ENOSPC, ADSP_ENORESOURCE_STR},
+ { -EBADR, ADSP_EHANDLE_STR},
+ { -EALREADY, ADSP_EALREADY_STR},
+ { -EPERM, ADSP_ENOTREADY_STR},
+ { -EINPROGRESS, ADSP_EPENDING_STR},
+ { -EBUSY, ADSP_EBUSY_STR},
+ { -ECANCELED, ADSP_EABORTED_STR},
+ { -EAGAIN, ADSP_EPREEMPTED_STR},
+ { -EAGAIN, ADSP_ECONTINUE_STR},
+ { -EAGAIN, ADSP_EIMMEDIATE_STR},
+ { -EAGAIN, ADSP_ENOTIMPL_STR},
+ { -ENODATA, ADSP_ENEEDMORE_STR},
+ { -EADV, ADSP_ERR_MAX_STR},
This, element 0x13, is not listed among the defined errors. Is this a
placeholder?
How about making this even more descriptive by using the format
[ADSP_EBADPARAM] = { -EINVAL, ADSP_EBADPARAM_STR },
That way the mapping table is self-describing.
And you can use ARRAY_SIZE() instead of specifying the fixed size of
ADSP_ERR_MAX + 1...
Will give that a try!
+ { -ENOMEM, ADSP_ENOMEMORY_STR},
+ { -ENODEV, ADSP_ENOTEXIST_STR},
+ { -EADV, ADSP_ERR_MAX_STR},
"Advertise error"?
No, downstream seems to define any unexpected error as -EADV, am not
sure if this correct, probably we should change this to be more sensible
one.
+};
+
+static inline int adsp_err_get_lnx_err_code(u32 adsp_error)
Can this be made internal to some c-file? So that any third party deals
only with linux error codes?
How about renaming this q6dsp_errno()?
yep will do that.
+{
+ if (adsp_error > ADSP_ERR_MAX)
+ return adsp_err_code_info[ADSP_ERR_MAX].lnx_err_code;
+ else
+ return adsp_err_code_info[adsp_error].lnx_err_code;
I think this would look better if you assign a local variable and have a
single return. And just hard code the "invalid error code" errno, rather
than looking up ADSP_ERR_MAX in the list.
+}
+
+static inline char *adsp_err_get_err_str(u32 adsp_error)
q6dsp_strerror(), to match strerror(3)?
yep!
+{
+ if (adsp_error > ADSP_ERR_MAX)
+ return adsp_err_code_info[ADSP_ERR_MAX].adsp_err_str;
+ else
+ return adsp_err_code_info[adsp_error].adsp_err_str;
And I do think that, as with strerror, this should return a human
readable error, not the stringified define.
okay!
+}
I'm puzzled to why these helper functions lives in a header file, at
least some aspects of this would better be hidden...
Will try to improve on this in next version.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
