[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 0/5] Introduce the Counter character device interface
On 12/20/20 3:44 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 05:15:14PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 11/22/20 2:29 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
>>> 1. Should standard Counter component data types be defined as u8 or u32?
>>> Many standard Counter component types such COUNTER_COMP_SIGNAL_LEVEL
>>> have standard values defined (e.g. COUNTER_SIGNAL_LEVEL_LOW and
>>> COUNTER_SIGNAL_LEVEL_HIGH). These values are currently handled by the
>>> Counter subsystem code as u8 data types.
>>> If u32 is used for these values instead, C enum structures could be
>>> used by driver authors to implicitly cast these values via the driver
>>> callback parameters.
>>> This question is primarily addressed to David Lechner. I'm somewhat
>>> confused about how this setup would look in device drivers. I've gone
>>> ahead and refactored the code to support u32 enums, and pushed it to
>>> a separate branch on my repository called counter_chrdev_v6_u32_enum:
>>> Please check it out and let me know what you think. Is this the
>>> support you had in mind? I'm curious to see an example of how would
>>> your driver callback functions would look in this case. If everything
>>> works out fine, then I'll submit this branch as v7 of this patchset.
>> I haven't had time to look at this in depth, but just superficially looking
>> at it, it is mostly there. The driver callback would just use the enum type
>> in place of u32. For example:
>> static int ti_eqep_function_write(struct counter_device *counter,
>> struct counter_count *count,
>> enum counter_function function)
>> and the COUNTER_FUNCTION_* constants would be defined as:
>> enum counter_function {
>> ...
>> };
>> instead of using #define macros.
>> One advantage I see to using u8, at least in the user API data structures,
>> is that it increases the number of events that fit in the kfifo buffer by
>> a significant factor.
>> And that is not to say that we couldn't do both: have the user API structs
>> use u8 for enum values and still use u32/strong enum types internally in
>> the callback functions.
> I'm including David Laight because he initially opposed enums in favor
> of fixed size types when we discussed this in an earlier revision:
> However, there have been significant changes to this patchset so the
> context now is different than those earlier discussions (i.e. we're no
> longer discussing ioctl calls).
> I think reimplementing these constants as enums as described could work.
> If we do so, should the enum constants be given specific values? For
> example:
> enum counter_function {
> ...
> };

I would say no on the explicit values since they don't have
any significant meaning.

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-21 16:21    [W:0.067 / U:2.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site