lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 07/24] fpga: dfl: add feature device infrastructure
    On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Moritz Fischer <mdf@kernel.org> wrote:

    Hi Moritz,

    > HI Hao,
    >
    > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:24:36PM +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
    >> From: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
    >>
    >> This patch abstracts the common operations of the sub features, and defines
    >> the feature_ops data structure, including init, uinit and ioctl function
    >> pointers. And this patch adds some common helper functions for FME and AFU
    >> drivers, e.g feature_dev_use_begin/end which are used to ensure exclusive
    >> usage of the feature device file.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Tim Whisonant <tim.whisonant@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Enno Luebbers <enno.luebbers@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Shiva Rao <shiva.rao@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Christopher Rauer <christopher.rauer@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Kang Luwei <luwei.kang@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <guangrong.xiao@linux.intel.com>
    >> Signed-off-by: Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>
    >> ---
    >> v2: rebased
    >> v3: use const for feature_ops.
    >> replace pci related function.
    >> v4: rebase and add more comments in code.
    >> ---
    >> drivers/fpga/dfl.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >> drivers/fpga/dfl.h | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
    >> 2 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >>
    >> diff --git a/drivers/fpga/dfl.c b/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
    >> index 38dc819..c0aad87 100644
    >> --- a/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
    >> +++ b/drivers/fpga/dfl.c
    >> @@ -74,6 +74,65 @@ static enum fpga_id_type feature_dev_id_type(struct platform_device *pdev)
    >> return FPGA_ID_MAX;
    >> }
    >>
    >> +void fpga_dev_feature_uinit(struct platform_device *pdev)
    >> +{
    >> + struct feature *feature;
    >> + struct feature_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
    > See comment below w.r.t ordering declarations. Not a must for sure.
    >> +
    >> + fpga_dev_for_each_feature(pdata, feature)
    >> + if (feature->ops) {
    >> + feature->ops->uinit(pdev, feature);
    >> + feature->ops = NULL;
    >> + }
    >> +}
    >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fpga_dev_feature_uinit);
    >> +
    >> +static int
    >> +feature_instance_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
    >> + struct feature_platform_data *pdata,
    >> + struct feature *feature, struct feature_driver *drv)
    >> +{
    >> + int ret;
    >> +
    >> + WARN_ON(!feature->ioaddr);
    >
    > Not sure I understand correctly, is the !feature->ioaddr a use-case that
    > happens? If not just return early.
    >> +
    >> + ret = drv->ops->init(pdev, feature);
    >> + if (ret)
    >> + return ret;
    >> +
    >> + feature->ops = drv->ops;
    >> +
    >> + return ret;
    >> +}
    >> +
    >> +int fpga_dev_feature_init(struct platform_device *pdev,
    >> + struct feature_driver *feature_drvs)
    >> +{
    >> + struct feature *feature;
    >> + struct feature_driver *drv = feature_drvs;
    >> + struct feature_platform_data *pdata = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
    >> + int ret;
    > We don't have clear guidelines here, but some subsystems want reverse
    > X-Mas tree declarations.

    Sounds good! I agree.

    Alan

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-02-14 22:14    [W:2.652 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site