Since you're going to have to redo these anyway can you make some
additional changes?
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 05:27:21PM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> +static int pi433_debugfs_regs_show(struct seq_file *m, void *p)
> +{
> + struct pi433_device *dev;
> + u8 reg_data[114];
> + size_t i;
int i; unless the sizes are really going to exceed 2 billion.
> + char *fmt = "0x%02x, 0x%02x\n";
> +
> + dev = m->private;
> +
> + // acquire locks to avoid race conditions
This comment does not add any information. Delete it.
> + mutex_lock(&dev->tx_fifo_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&dev->rx_lock);
> +
> + // wait for on-going operations to finish
> + if (dev->tx_active)
This condition is unnecessary, it's already checked in wait_event_interruptible().
> + wait_event_interruptible(dev->rx_wait_queue, !dev->tx_active);
It makes me nervous that you're not checking the returns from these...
> +
> + if (dev->rx_active)
> + wait_event_interruptible(dev->tx_wait_queue, !dev->rx_active);
> +
> + // read contiguous regs
> + // skip FIFO register (0x0) otherwise this can affect some of uC ops
> + for (i = 1; i < 0x50; i++)
> + reg_data[i] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, i);
> +
> + // read non-contiguous regs
> + reg_data[REG_TESTLNA] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, REG_TESTLNA);
> + reg_data[REG_TESTPA1] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, REG_TESTPA1);
> + reg_data[REG_TESTPA2] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, REG_TESTPA2);
> + reg_data[REG_TESTDAGC] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, REG_TESTDAGC);
> + reg_data[REG_TESTAFC] = rf69_read_reg(dev->spi, REG_TESTAFC);
> +
> + seq_puts(m, "# reg, val\n");
> +
> + // print contiguous regs
These comments duplicate the comments a few lines earlier so they don't
add anything new.
> + for (i = 1; i < 0x50; i++)
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, i, reg_data[i]);
> +
> + // print non-contiguous regs
Delete.
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, REG_TESTLNA, reg_data[REG_TESTLNA]);
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, REG_TESTPA1, reg_data[REG_TESTPA1]);
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, REG_TESTPA2, reg_data[REG_TESTPA2]);
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, REG_TESTDAGC, reg_data[REG_TESTDAGC]);
> + seq_printf(m, fmt, REG_TESTAFC, reg_data[REG_TESTAFC]);
> +
> + // release locks
Delete this comment
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->tx_fifo_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->rx_lock);
Could you flip these locks around so they mirror the start of the
function? It doesn't affect runtime, but really it's nicer if the
ordering are always consistent. ABBA.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t pi433_debugfs_regs_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> +{
> + return single_open(filp, pi433_debugfs_regs_show, inode->i_private);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct file_operations debugfs_fops = {
> + .llseek = seq_lseek,
> + .open = pi433_debugfs_regs_open,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> + .read = seq_read,
> + .release = single_release
> +};
> +
> /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>
> static int pi433_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> {
> struct pi433_device *device;
> + struct dentry *entry; /* debugfs */
Delete the comment. The variable name is not good. "dir" would be
better.
> int retval;
>
> /* setup spi parameters */
> @@ -1256,6 +1324,11 @@ static int pi433_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> /* spi setup */
> spi_set_drvdata(spi, device);
>
> + /* debugfs setup */
Delete comment (it does not add information).
> + entry = debugfs_create_dir(dev_name(device->dev),
> + debugfs_lookup(KBUILD_MODNAME, NULL));
> + debugfs_create_file("regs", 0400, entry, device, &debugfs_fops);
> +
> return 0;
>
> del_cdev:
> @@ -1279,6 +1352,10 @@ static int pi433_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> static int pi433_remove(struct spi_device *spi)
> {
> struct pi433_device *device = spi_get_drvdata(spi);
> + struct dentry *mod_entry = debugfs_lookup(KBUILD_MODNAME, NULL);
> +
> + /* debugfs */
Delete comment.
> + debugfs_remove(debugfs_lookup(dev_name(device->dev), mod_entry));
>
> /* free GPIOs */
> free_gpio(device);
regards,
dan carpenter
