On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:03:24 +0200,
Vinod Koul wrote:
> 
> +static struct sdw_slave *sdw_get_slave(struct sdw_bus *bus, int i)
> +{
> +     struct sdw_slave *slave;
> +
> +     list_for_each_entry(slave, &bus->slaves, node) {
> +             if (slave->dev_num == i)
> +                     return slave;
> +     }
> +
> +     return NULL;

Is this performed always in bus_lock, right?
Better to document it.

> +static int sdw_compare_devid(struct sdw_slave *slave, struct sdw_slave_id id)
> +{
> +
> +     if ((slave->id.unique_id != id.unique_id) ||
> +                     (slave->id.mfg_id != id.mfg_id) ||
> +                     (slave->id.part_id != id.part_id) ||
> +                     (slave->id.class_id != id.class_id))

Align indentations.

> +static int sdw_get_device_num(struct sdw_slave *slave)
> +{
> +     bool assigned = false;
> +     int i;
> +
> +     mutex_lock(&slave->bus->bus_lock);
> +     for (i = 1; i <= SDW_MAX_DEVICES; i++) {
> +             if (slave->bus->assigned[i] == true)
> +                     continue;
> +
> +             slave->bus->assigned[i] = true;
> +             assigned = true;
> +
> +             /*
> +              * Do not update dev_num in Slave data structure here,
> +              * Update once program dev_num is successful
> +              */
> +             break;

With the bitmap, it's easier, you can use find_next_zero_bit() :)


> +static int sdw_program_device_num(struct sdw_bus *bus)
> +{
> +     u8 buf[SDW_NUM_DEV_ID_REGISTERS] = {0};
> +     unsigned long long addr;

Use u64.

> +     struct sdw_slave *slave;
> +     struct sdw_slave_id id;
> +     struct sdw_msg msg;
> +     bool found = false;
> +     int ret;
> +
> +     /* No Slave, so use raw xfer api */
> +     sdw_fill_msg(&msg, SDW_SCP_DEVID_0, SDW_NUM_DEV_ID_REGISTERS,
> +                                     0, SDW_MSG_FLAG_READ, buf);
> +
> +     do {
> +             ret = sdw_transfer(bus, NULL, &msg);
> +             if (ret == -ENODATA)
> +                     break;
> +             if (ret < 0) {
> +                     dev_err(bus->dev, "DEVID read fail:%d\n", ret);
> +                     break;

So here we break, and the function returns zero.  Is this the expected
behavior?

> +             }
> +
> +             /*
> +              * Construct the addr and extract. Cast the higher shift
> +              * bits to avoid truncation due to size limit.
> +              */
> +             addr = buf[5] | (buf[4] << 8) | (buf[3] << 16) |
> +                     (buf[2] << 24) | ((unsigned long long)buf[1] << 32) |
> +                     ((unsigned long long)buf[0] << 40);
> +
> +             sdw_extract_slave_id(bus, addr, &id);
> +
> +             /* Now compare with entries */
> +             list_for_each_entry(slave, &bus->slaves, node) {

Isn't this function protected under bus_lock...?

> +                     if (sdw_compare_devid(slave, id) == 0) {
> +                             found = true;
> +
> +                             /*
> +                              * Assign a new dev_num to this Slave and
> +                              * not mark it present. It will be marked
> +                              * present after it reports ATTACHED on new
> +                              * dev_num
> +                              */
> +                             ret = sdw_assign_device_num(slave);
> +                             if (ret) {
> +                                     dev_err(slave->bus->dev,
> +                                             "Assign dev_num failed:%d",
> +                                             ret);
> +                                     return ret;
> +                             }
> +
> +                             break;
> +                     }
> +             }
> +
> +             if (found == false) {
> +                     /* TODO: Park this device in Group 13 */
> +                     dev_err(bus->dev, "Slave Entry not found");

No break here?  Otherwise...

> +             }
> +
> +     } while (ret == 0);

... the outer loop may go endlessly.
This condition doesn't look effective.

> +
> +     return 0;

... and here returns no error?


thanks,

Takashi

Reply via email to