Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:19:03 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add runtime timeslots changes support | From | Vadim Fedorenko <> |
| |
On 24/01/2024 15:26, Herve Codina wrote: > 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 ?
I see. I'm just thinking if it's possible to use helpers from bitops.h and bitmap.h here to avoid open-coding common parts of the code.
> Best regards, > Hervé
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |