> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2022 12:09 AM
> To: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ath12k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PATCH 03/50] wifi: ath12k: add ce.c
>
> From: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> (Patches split into one patch per file for easier review, but the final
> commit will be one big patch. See the cover letter for more info.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/ce.c | 971 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 971 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/ce.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/ce.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..5694eef37232
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/ce.c
[...]
> +
> +static int ath12k_ce_rx_buf_enqueue_pipe(struct ath12k_ce_pipe *pipe,
> + struct sk_buff *skb, dma_addr_t paddr)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_base *ab = pipe->ab;
> + struct ath12k_ce_ring *ring = pipe->dest_ring;
> + struct hal_srng *srng;
> + unsigned int write_index;
> + unsigned int nentries_mask = ring->nentries_mask;
> + struct hal_ce_srng_dest_desc *desc;
> + int ret;
> +
[...]
> +
> + ring->skb[write_index] = skb;
> + write_index = CE_RING_IDX_INCR(nentries_mask, write_index);
> + ring->write_index = write_index;
> +
> + pipe->rx_buf_needed--;
> +
> + ret = 0;
nit.
I think '= 0' can be initializer like other functions.
> +exit:
> + ath12k_hal_srng_access_end(ab, srng);
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&srng->lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int ath12k_ce_rx_post_pipe(struct ath12k_ce_pipe *pipe)
> +{
[...]
> +
> + ATH12K_SKB_RXCB(skb)->paddr = paddr;
> +
> + ret = ath12k_ce_rx_buf_enqueue_pipe(pipe, skb, paddr);
> +
nit.
this blank line can be removed.
> + if (ret) {
> + ath12k_warn(ab, "failed to enqueue rx buf: %d\n", ret);
> + dma_unmap_single(ab->dev, paddr,
> + skb->len + skb_tailroom(skb),
> + DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> + dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> + goto exit;
> + }
> + }
> +
> +exit:
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ab->ce.ce_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
[...]
> +
> +int ath12k_ce_send(struct ath12k_base *ab, struct sk_buff *skb, u8 pipe_id,
> + u16 transfer_id)
> +{
[...]
> +
> + ath12k_hal_srng_access_end(ab, srng);
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&srng->lock);
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ab->ce.ce_lock);
Two unlock are duplicate of err_unlock. I think they can be merged to a single
copy to reduce maintain effort. If my opinion is accepted, maybe rename
err_unlock to out_unlock because it becomes a normal flow.
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_unlock:
> + spin_unlock_bh(&srng->lock);
> +
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ab->ce.ce_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
These opinions are not very important. Just for reference.
Ping-Ke
