Re: [PATCH v2] staging: most: dim2: read done_buffers count locally from HDM channel

[Deepak R Varma]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 02:52:21PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, Deepak R Varma wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > >
> > > > The done_buffer count is already available in the hdm_channel struct.
> > > > Calling dim_get_channel_state function to source this value out of
> > > > the same structure is unnecessary.
> > > > Further, the second parameter struct dim_ch_state_t to this function
> > > > is filled by using the hdm_channel inside the function. This filled in
> > > > variable is never used in the caller and can be altogether removed.
> > > > So, a call to dim_get_channel_state function in this context also
> > > > deems expensive.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the rewrite.
> > >
> > > I find "source this value out of" hard to understand.
> > >
> > > I would have written something like the following:
> > >
> > > The function dim_get_channel_state only serves to initialize the ready and
> > > done_buffers fields of the structure passed as its second argument.  In
> > > service_done_flag, this structure is never used again and the only purpose
> > > of the call is to get the value that is put in the done_buffers field.
> > > But that value is just the done_sw_buffers_number field of the call's
> > > first argument.  So the whole call is useless, and we can just replace it
> > > with an access to this field.
> > >
> > > This change implies that the variable st is no longer used, so drop it as
> > > well.
> >
> > This is really well written. Sounds much structured. Now my own log message
> > sounds a little random :)
> >
> > Is it okay for me to use your verbiage as is in my patch log?
>
> Yes.

Thank you. Can I convert this into a patch set and include the other suggestion
from you to correct the dim_ch_state_t struct name? Or should these be separate
patches now?

./drv



>
> julia
>