On 01-07-21, 14:10, Jie Deng wrote:
> I think a fixed number of sgs will make things easier to develop backend.
Yeah, but it looks awkward to send a message buffer which isn't used
at all. From protocol's point of view, it just looks wrong/buggy.
The backend can just look at the number of elements received, they
can either be 2 (in case of zero-length) transfer, or 3 (for
read/write) and any other number is invalid.
> If you prefer to parse the number of descriptors instead of using the msg
> length to
>
> distinguish the zero-length request from other requests, I'm OK to set a
> limit.
My concern is more about the specification here first.
> if (!msgs[i].len) {
> sg_init_one(&msg_buf, reqs[i].buf, msgs[i].len);
>
> if (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD)
> sgs[outcnt + incnt++] = &msg_buf;
> else
> sgs[outcnt++] = &msg_buf;
> }
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > You could avoid this pair of ifdef by creating dummy versions of below
> > routines for !CONFIG_PM_SLEEP case. Up to you.
>
>
> Thank you. I'd like to keep the same.
Sure.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
