lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: cleanup - group and document up private firmware parameters
From
Date
Hi Luis,

On 15/09/17 00:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The firmware API has a slew of private options available, which can
> sometimes be hard to understand. When new functionality is introduced
> we also tend to have modify a slew of internal helpers.
>
> Just stuff all common private requirements into its own data structure
> and move features into properly defined flags which can then be carefully
> documented. This:
>
> o reduces the amount of changes we have make as we advance functionality
> o helps remove the #ifdef mess we had created for private features
>
> The above benefits makes the code much easier to understand and maintain.

Yes I agree it is much cleaner that way.

A couple of nitpicks below.

> +/**
> + * enum fw_priv_reqs - private features only used internally
> + *
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK: specifies that the firmware request
> + * will use a fallback mechanism if the kernel's direct filesystem
> + * lookup failed to find the requested firmware. If the flag
> + * %FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK is set but the flag
> + * %FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT is not set, it means the caller
> + * is relying on a custom fallback mechanism for firmwarwe lookup as a
> + * fallback mechanism. The custom fallback mechanism is expected to find
> + * any found firmware using the exposed sysfs interface of the
> + * firmware_class. Since the custom fallback mechanism is not compatible
> + * with the internal caching mechanism for firmware lookups at resume,
> + * caching will be disabled when the custom fallback mechanism is used.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT: indicates that the fallback mechanism
> + * this firmware request will rely on will be that of having the kernel
> + * issue a uevent to userspace. Userspace in turn is expected to be
> + * monitoring for uevents for the firmware_class and will use the
> + * exposted sysfs interface to upload the firmware for the caller.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_NO_CACHE: indicates that the firmware request
> + * should not set up and use the internal caching mechanism to assist
> + * drivers from fetching firmware at resume time after suspend.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_OPTIONAL: if set it is not a hard requirement by the
> + * caller that the file requested be present. An error will not be recorded
> + * if the file is not found.
> + */
> +enum fw_priv_reqs {
> + FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK = 1 << 0,
> + FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT = 1 << 1,
> + FW_PRIV_REQ_NO_CACHE = 1 << 2,
> + FW_PRIV_REQ_OPTIONAL = 1 << 3,
> +};
> +

Why REQ ?
Looks more like a set of flags to me.
Wouldn't FW_PRIV_FLAG_XXX be better?

> +/**
> + * struct fw_priv_params - private firmware parameters
> + * @mode: mode of operation
> + * @priv_reqs: private set of &enum fw_priv_reqs, private requirements for
> + * the firmware request
> + * @alloc_buf: buffer area allocated by the caller so we can place the
> + * respective firmware
> + * @alloc_buf_size: size of the @alloc_buf
> + */
> +struct fw_priv_params {
> + enum fw_api_mode mode;
> + u64 priv_reqs;

Not sure the priv_ prefix in the priv_reqs is necessary since the whole
structure is private.
I'd have named it just flags.


Regards,

Martin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-15 10:31    [W:0.052 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site