lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/17] fpga: dfl: fme: support 512bit data width PR
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:53:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 11:07 +0800, Wu Hao wrote:
> > @@ -200,21 +228,32 @@ static int fme_mgr_write(struct fpga_manager *mgr,
> > pr_credit = FIELD_GET(FME_PR_STS_PR_CREDIT,
> > pr_status);
> > }
> >
> > - if (count < 4) {
> > + if (count < priv->pr_datawidth) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Invalid PR bitstream size\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> Shouldn't this have become a WARN_ON in patch 2 given that the kernel
> already pads the buffer?

Thanks a lot for the review and comments.

I agree. it's better to use WARN_ON this place.

>
> > }
> >
> > - pr_data = 0;
> > - pr_data |= FIELD_PREP(FME_PR_DATA_PR_DATA_RAW,
> > - *(((u32 *)buf) + i));
> > - writeq(pr_data, fme_pr + FME_PR_DATA);
> > - count -= 4;
> > + switch (priv->pr_datawidth) {
> > + case 4:
> > + pr_data = 0;
> > + pr_data |= FIELD_PREP(FME_PR_DATA_PR_DATA_RAW,
> > + *((u32 *)buf));
>
> I know it's not new, but why not just "pr_data = FIELD..."? Const should
> also be preserved in the cast, and you can drop one set of parentheses.

Yes, agree, will fix this.

>
> > + writeq(pr_data, fme_pr + FME_PR_DATA);
> > + break;
> > + case 64:
> > + copy512((void *)buf, fme_pr + FME_PR_512_DATA);
> > + break;
>
> Unnecessary cast.

Will fix this.

>
> > + default:
> > + ret = -EFAULT;
> > + goto done;
>
> How is it EFAULT? Any other value for pr_datawidth should be WARN_ON
> since it's set by kernel code.

Agree, will fix this in the next version.

>
> > @@ -159,13 +161,10 @@ static int fme_pr(struct platform_device *pdev,
> > unsigned long arg)
> > fpga_bridges_put(&region->bridge_list);
> >
> > put_device(&region->dev);
> > -unlock_exit:
> > - mutex_unlock(&pdata->lock);
> > free_exit:
> > vfree(buf);
> > - if (copy_to_user((void __user *)arg, &port_pr, minsz))
> > - return -EFAULT;
> > -
>
> Why is the copy_to_user being removed?

This code is not needed at all but added by mistake i think.

Sorry, i should move these code into a separated patch with proper comments
to avoid confusion.

Thanks
Hao

>
> -Scott

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-27 07:02    [W:0.125 / U:19.404 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site