Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] drivers: soc: Add LLCC driver

[rishabhb]

On 2018-05-22 12:38, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM,  <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2018-05-18 14:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Rishabh Bhatnagar
> > > <rishabhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ?