LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rishabhb@codeaurora.org
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm@lists.infradead.org, tsoni@codeaurora.org,
	ckadabi@codeaurora.org, Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 13:40:49 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <19968f96da0c548dd7d96e7520ce899e@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd8HZU+BT38-OfXHiihv1yZG6YBeMWyfweBA+kAwk6HUw@mail.gmail.com>

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.
Is this fine?
for (count = 0; count < sz; count++) {
    if (!cfg)
	return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
    if (cfg->usecase_id == uid)
	break;
    cfg++;
}
if (count == sz)
    return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);

> 
>>>> +       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?
> 
Other reviewers sometimes are not okay if the checkpatch complains.
Because I have gotten many reviews previously concerning about line
length. Not sure how to proceed here.

>>>> +       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 ?
Yes, forgot to mention.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-22 20:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-16 17:43 [PATCH v7 0/2] SDM845 System Cache Driver Rishabh Bhatnagar
2018-05-16 17:43 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: Documentation for qcom, llcc Rishabh Bhatnagar
2018-05-18 14:33   ` Rob Herring
2018-05-16 17:43 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver Rishabh Bhatnagar
2018-05-17 22:30   ` Evan Green
2018-05-18 21:01   ` Andy Shevchenko
2018-05-22 18:33     ` rishabhb
2018-05-22 19:38       ` Andy Shevchenko
2018-05-22 20:40         ` rishabhb [this message]
2018-05-22 20:46           ` Andy Shevchenko
2018-05-23 17:59         ` rishabhb

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=19968f96da0c548dd7d96e7520ce899e@codeaurora.org \
    --to=rishabhb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
    --cc=ckadabi@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=tsoni@codeaurora.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).