lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/8] scpi: Add cmd indirection table to prepare for legacy commands
From
Date
On 09/19/2016 04:41 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> On 07/09/16 16:34, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> Add indirection table to permit multiple command values for legacy support.
>>
>
> I wrote the most of the patch and you changed the author too ;)

Sorry, forgot this ! v4 will have it !
>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> index 4388937..9a87687 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>
> [..]
>
>> @@ -161,6 +194,7 @@ struct scpi_drvinfo {
>> u32 protocol_version;
>> u32 firmware_version;
>> int num_chans;
>> + int *scpi_cmds;
>> atomic_t next_chan;
>> struct scpi_ops *scpi_ops;
>> struct scpi_chan *channels;
>> @@ -390,6 +424,19 @@ static u32 scpi_get_version(void)
>> return scpi_info->protocol_version;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline int check_cmd(unsigned int offset)
>> +{
>> + if (offset >= CMD_MAX_COUNT ||
>
> If we call scpi_send_message internally(as it's static) why is this
> check needed ?
>
>
>> + !scpi_info ||
>> + !scpi_info->scpi_cmds)
>
> Will be even reach to this point if above is true ?
>
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (scpi_info->scpi_cmds[offset] < 0)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> IMO just above couple of lines in the beginning of scpi_send_message
> will suffice. You can just add this to my original patch.

Will do.

>
>> static int
>> scpi_clk_get_range(u16 clk_id, unsigned long *min, unsigned long *max)
>> {
>> @@ -397,8 +444,13 @@ scpi_clk_get_range(u16 clk_id, unsigned long *min, unsigned long *max)
>> struct clk_get_info clk;
>> __le16 le_clk_id = cpu_to_le16(clk_id);
>>
>> - ret = scpi_send_message(SCPI_CMD_GET_CLOCK_INFO, &le_clk_id,
>> - sizeof(le_clk_id), &clk, sizeof(clk));
>> + ret = check_cmd(CMD_GET_CLOCK_INFO);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>
> It's totally unnecessary to add check in each and every function calling
> scpi_send_message, why not add it to scpi_send_message instead.
>

This was my first thought, I should have stayed at this !

Thanks,
Neil

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-19 17:04    [W:0.079 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site