RE: [PATCH v4 07/24] fpga: dfl: add feature device infrastructure

[Wu, Hao]

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Moritz Fischer <mdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Moritz,
> 
> > HI Hao,
> >

Hi Alan and Moritz

Thanks a lot for the code review and comments.

> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:24:36PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> >> From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> This patch abstracts the common operations of the sub features, and defines
> >> the feature_ops data structure, including init, uinit and ioctl function
> >> pointers. And this patch adds some common helper functions for FME and
> AFU
> >> drivers, e.g feature_dev_use_begin/end which are used to ensure exclusive
> >> usage of the feature device file.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kang Luwei <luwei.kang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v2: rebased
> >> v3: use const for feature_ops.
> >>     replace pci related function.
> >> v4: rebase and add more comments in code.
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/fpga/dfl.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/fpga/dfl.h | 85
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  2 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
> >> index 38dc819..c0aad87 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
> >> @@ -74,6 +74,65 @@ static enum fpga_id_type feature_dev_id_type(struct
> platform_device *pdev)
> >>       return FPGA_ID_MAX;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +void fpga_dev_feature_uinit(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct feature *feature;
> >> +     struct feature_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> > See comment below w.r.t ordering declarations. Not a must for sure.
> >> +
> >> +     fpga_dev_for_each_feature(pdata, feature)
> >> +             if (feature->ops) {
> >> +                     feature->ops->uinit(pdev, feature);
> >> +                     feature->ops = NULL;
> >> +             }
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fpga_dev_feature_uinit);
> >> +
> >> +static int
> >> +feature_instance_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> +                   struct feature_platform_data *pdata,
> >> +                   struct feature *feature, struct feature_driver *drv)
> >> +{
> >> +     int ret;
> >> +
> >> +     WARN_ON(!feature->ioaddr);
> >
> > Not sure I understand correctly, is the !feature->ioaddr a use-case that
> > happens? If not just return early.

Actually this should never happen (init a feature without mapped mmio
resource address). If this warning is seen, that means there should be
critical issues somewhere in driver enumeration code. But sure, I can just
use if () return instead. : )

> >> +
> >> +     ret = drv->ops->init(pdev, feature);
> >> +     if (ret)
> >> +             return ret;
> >> +
> >> +     feature->ops = drv->ops;
> >> +
> >> +     return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int fpga_dev_feature_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> +                       struct feature_driver *feature_drvs)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct feature *feature;
> >> +     struct feature_driver *drv = feature_drvs;
> >> +     struct feature_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> >> +     int ret;
> > We don't have clear guidelines here, but some subsystems want reverse
> > X-Mas tree declarations.
> 
> Sounds good!  I agree.

Do you mean we should reverse fpga_xxx definitions? If yes, then I can update
the code to use fpga_dfl_xxx or dfl_xxx instead. : )

Thanks
Hao

> 
> Alan