lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver
On 2018-05-22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM, <rishabhb@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 2018-05-18 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Rishabh Bhatnagar
>>> <rishabhb@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>>>> +#define ACTIVATE 0x1
>>>> +#define DEACTIVATE 0x2
>>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_ACTIVATE 0x1
>>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_OPCODE_DEACTIVATE 0x2
>>>> +#define ACT_CTRL_ACT_TRIG 0x1
>>>
>>>
>>> Are these bits? Perhaps BIT() ?
>>>
>> isn't it just better to use fixed size as u suggest in the next
>> comment?
>
> If the are bits, use BIT() macro.
>
>>>> +struct llcc_slice_desc *llcc_slice_getd(u32 uid)
>>>> +{
>>>> + const struct llcc_slice_config *cfg;
>>>> + struct llcc_slice_desc *desc;
>>>> + u32 sz, count = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + cfg = drv_data->cfg;
>>>> + sz = drv_data->cfg_size;
>>>> +
>>>
>>>
>>>> + while (cfg && count < sz) {
>>>> + if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + cfg++;
>>>> + count++;
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (cfg == NULL || count == sz)
>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>
>>>
>>> if (!cfg)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>
>>> while (cfg->... != uid) {
>>> cfg++;
>>> count++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (count == sz)
>>> return ...
>>>
>>> Though I would rather put it to for () loop.
>>>
>> In each while loop iteration the cfg pointer needs to be checked for
>> NULL. What if the usecase id never matches the uid passed by client
>> and we keep iterating. At some point it will crash.
>
> do {
> if (!cfg || count == sz)
> return ...(-ENODEV);
> ...
> } while (...);
>
> Though, as I said for-loop will look slightly better I think.
>
>>>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>>>> + DEACTIVATE);
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps one line (~83 characters here is OK) ?
>>
>> The checkpatch script complains about such lines.
>
> So what if it just 3 characters out?
>
Many upstream reviewers have objection to lines crossing over 80
characters
I have gotten reviews to reduce the line length even if its like 81~82
characters. Can we keep this as it is? I have addressed all other
comments and will send out the next patch by today.

>>>> + ret = llcc_update_act_ctrl(desc->slice_id, act_ctrl_val,
>>>> + ACTIVATE);
>
>>> Ditto.
>
>>>> + attr1_cfg = bcast_off +
>>>> +
>>>> LLCC_TRP_ATTR1_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
>>>> + attr0_cfg = bcast_off +
>>>> +
>>>> LLCC_TRP_ATTR0_CFGn(llcc_table[i].slice_id);
>
>>> Ditto.
>
>>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].probe_target_ways <<
>>>> + ATTR1_PROBE_TARGET_WAYS_SHIFT;
>>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].fixed_size <<
>>>> + ATTR1_FIXED_SIZE_SHIFT;
>>>> + attr1_val |= llcc_table[i].priority <<
>>>> ATTR1_PRIORITY_SHIFT;
>
>>> foo |=
>>> bar << SHIFT;
>>>
>>> would look slightly better.
>
> Did you consider this option ?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-23 20:00    [W:0.125 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site