Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:26:46 +0100 | From | Herve Codina <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add runtime timeslots changes support |
| |
Hi Vadim,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:10:46 +0000 Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev> wrote:
[...] > > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc, > > + u32 slot_map, struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info) > > +{ > > + u64 ts_mask_avail; > > + unsigned int bit; > > + unsigned int i; > > + u64 ts_mask; > > + u64 map; > > + > > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */ > > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n", > > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail; > > + ts_mask = 0; > > + map = slot_map; > > + bit = 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) { > > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) { > > + if (map & BIT_ULL(bit)) > > + ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i); > > + bit++; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots 0x%llx -> (0x%llx,0x%llx)\n", > > + map, ts_mask_avail, ts_mask); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + ts_info->tx_ts_mask = ts_mask; > > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask = ts_mask; > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc, > > + const struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info, u32 *slot_map) > > +{ > > + u64 ts_mask_avail; > > + unsigned int bit; > > + unsigned int i; > > + u64 ts_mask; > > + u64 map; > > + > > Starting from here ... > > > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */ > > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n", > > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask != ts_info->tx_ts_mask) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n", > > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask, ts_info->tx_ts_mask); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail; > > + ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask; > > + map = 0; > > + bit = 0; > > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) { > > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) { > > + if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i)) > > + map |= BIT_ULL(bit); > > + bit++; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n", > > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > till here the block looks like copy of the block from previous function. > It worth to make a separate function for it, I think. > > > + if (map >= BIT_ULL(32)) { > > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Slot map out of 32bit (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n", > > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map); > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + > > + *slot_map = map; > > + return 0; > > +} > > + [...]
I am not so sure. There are slighty differences between the two functions. The error messages and, in particular, the loop in qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map() is: --- 8< --- ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail; ts_mask = 0; map = slot_map; bit = 0; for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) { if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) { if (map & BIT_ULL(bit)) ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i); bit++; } } --- 8< ---
whereas it is the following in qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info(): --- 8< --- ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail; ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask; map = 0; bit = 0; for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) { if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) { if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i)) map |= BIT_ULL(bit); bit++; } } --- 8< ---
ts_map and map initializations are not the same, i and bit are not used for the same purpose and the computed value is not computed based on the same information.
With that pointed, I am not sure that having some common code for both function will be relevant. Your opinion ?
Best regards, Hervé
| |