lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/4] mhi_bus: core: Add support for MHI host interface
From
Date
Thanks for quick feedback


On 04/27/2018 12:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:23:28PM -0700, Sujeev Dias wrote:
>> MHI Host Interface is a communication protocol to be used by the host
>> to control and communcate with modem over a high speed peripheral bus.
>> This module will allow host to communicate with external devices that
>> support MHI protocol.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sujeev Dias <sdias@codeaurora.org>
> No one else has ever reviewed this code before? That's not good, please
> at the very least, have someone else at your company go over it first.
> I don't want to be the ones having to point out all of the "obvious"
> issues :)
>
This code has gone thru rigorous code review and testing, before I
submit next patch
I will have multiple people sign off on it.
>> ---
>> Documentation/00-INDEX | 2 +
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/mhi.txt | 141 +++
>> Documentation/mhi.txt | 235 ++++
>> drivers/bus/Kconfig | 17 +
>> drivers/bus/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/bus/mhi/Makefile | 8 +
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_boot.c | 593 ++++++++++
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_dtr.c | 177 +++
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_init.c | 1290 +++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_internal.h | 732 ++++++++++++
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_main.c | 1476 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_pm.c | 1177 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/mhi.h | 694 ++++++++++++
>> include/linux/mod_devicetable.h | 11 +
>> 15 files changed, 6555 insertions(+)
> And a 6555 line patch is a bit hard to consume all at once. Can't this
> be split up into much more reviewable chunks? Look at how some of the
> other new bus subsystems got added to the tree recently. They were
> submitted in longer patch series, but smaller sized patches
> individually. That makes things much easier to review.
>
> For example, there is no reason your debugfs stuff needs to be in this
> initial patch. That should be in a separate one, right? Same for
> firmware download. Please take the time to break this up into logical
> steps.
>
> Like my son's math teacher keeps telling him, "show your work, not just
> an answer at the bottom of the page".
>
> Also, it is required by the DT maintainers to split that file alone up
> into a separate patch to be even considered for merging.
>
> One thing I can tell you right now that isn't acceptable:
That is interesting because internally it's separated, and I squash them
thinking
it was preferred. I will separate them out to functional blocks
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MHI_DEBUG
> Don't have a separate config option for debugging. No one will enable
> it, which makes it pointless. Everything has to be dynamic these days.
Intention was to completely compile out MHI_VERB messages because we
have those messages in
data path. For release build, we wanted to reduce as much mips as
possible. However, for
debugging these messages are extremely helpful.

I will look into tracepoints...
>> +
>> +#define MHI_VERB(fmt, ...) do { \
>> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_VERBOSE) \
>> + pr_debug("[D][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__);\
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#else
>> +
>> +#define MHI_VERB(fmt, ...)
>> +
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#define MHI_LOG(fmt, ...) do { \
>> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_INFO) \
>> + pr_info("[I][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__);\
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#define MHI_ERR(fmt, ...) do { \
>> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_ERROR) \
>> + pr_err("[E][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
>> +#define MHI_CRITICAL(fmt, ...) do { \
>> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_CRITICAL) \
>> + pr_alert("[C][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
>> +} while (0)
>> +
> And do not roll your own debugging/logging macros. Use what is given to
> you (dev_info(), dev_err(), dev_dbg()), they are there for a reason. By
> going around them, you circumvent the whole of the kernel logging
> infrastructure and declare that your tiny bus is somehow more "special"
> than it.
>
> And I doubt you want to make such a statement :)

well :).. I will remove them in next revision.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Thanks
Sujeev
--

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-28 16:29    [W:0.124 / U:6.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site