Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 01/40] soundwire: add debugfs support | From | Pierre-Louis Bossart <> | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:43:26 -0500 |
| |
On 7/25/19 5:15 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > A couple of nitpicks:
Thanks for the feedback!
>> create mode 100644 drivers/soundwire/debugfs.c > > [snip] > >> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.h b/drivers/soundwire/bus.h >> index 3048ca153f22..06ac4adb0074 100644 >> --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.h >> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.h >> @@ -18,6 +18,30 @@ static inline int sdw_acpi_find_slaves(struct sdw_bus *bus) >> void sdw_extract_slave_id(struct sdw_bus *bus, >> u64 addr, struct sdw_slave_id *id); >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS >> +struct dentry *sdw_bus_debugfs_init(struct sdw_bus *bus); >> +void sdw_bus_debugfs_exit(struct dentry *d); >> +struct dentry *sdw_slave_debugfs_init(struct sdw_slave *slave); >> +void sdw_slave_debugfs_exit(struct dentry *d); >> +void sdw_debugfs_init(void); >> +void sdw_debugfs_exit(void); >> +#else >> +struct dentry *sdw_bus_debugfs_init(struct sdw_bus *bus) >> +{ return NULL; } > > static? > >> + >> +void sdw_bus_debugfs_exit(struct dentry *d) {} >> + >> +struct dentry *sdw_slave_debugfs_init(struct sdw_slave *slave) >> +{ return NULL; } >> + >> +void sdw_slave_debugfs_exit(struct dentry *d) {} >> + >> +void sdw_debugfs_init(void) {} >> + >> +void sdw_debugfs_exit(void) {} > > Same for all the above. You could also declare them inline, but I really hope > the compiler will be smart enough to do that itself.
yes, I'll add static inline for all this.
>> +struct dentry *sdw_bus_debugfs_init(struct sdw_bus *bus) >> +{ >> + struct dentry *d; > > I would remove the above > >> + char name[16]; >> + >> + if (!sdw_debugfs_root) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + /* create the debugfs master-N */ >> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "master-%d", bus->link_id); >> + d = debugfs_create_dir(name, sdw_debugfs_root); >> + >> + return d; > > And just do > > + return debugfs_create_dir(name, sdw_debugfs_root);
yep, will do.
>> +static ssize_t sdw_sprintf(struct sdw_slave *slave, >> + char *buf, size_t pos, unsigned int reg) >> +{ >> + int value; >> + >> + value = sdw_read(slave, reg); > > I personally would join the two lines above, but that's just a personal > preference.
I prefer splitting variables and code, I just can't mentally split the two.
> >> + >> + if (value < 0) >> + return scnprintf(buf + pos, RD_BUF - pos, "%3x\tXX\n", reg); >> + else > > I think it's advised to not use an else in such cases. > > Thanks > Guennadi > >> + return scnprintf(buf + pos, RD_BUF - pos, >> + "%3x\t%2x\n", reg, value); >> +}
The intent was to provide a visual cue that the register is not implemented, which is quite useful. Not all registers are mandatory and not all vendors document the entire set of registers, so it's a good way to figure things out. The value is not used for any functional purpose, it's just a register dump for the integrator to look at. I'll add a note to explain the idea.
|  |