On 21-02-01 12:41:36, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > +static int cxl_mem_setup_regs(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> > +{
> > +   struct device *dev = &cxlm->pdev->dev;
> > +   int cap, cap_count;
> > +   u64 cap_array;
> > +
> > +   cap_array = readq(cxlm->regs + CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_OFFSET);
> > +   if (CXL_GET_FIELD(cap_array, CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_ID) != 
> > CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_CAP_ID)
> > +           return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +   cap_count = CXL_GET_FIELD(cap_array, CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_COUNT);
> > +
> > +   for (cap = 1; cap <= cap_count; cap++) {
> > +           void __iomem *register_block;
> > +           u32 offset;
> > +           u16 cap_id;
> > +
> > +           cap_id = readl(cxlm->regs + cap * 0x10) & 0xffff;
> > +           offset = readl(cxlm->regs + cap * 0x10 + 0x4);
> > +           register_block = cxlm->regs + offset;
> > +
> > +           switch (cap_id) {
> > +           case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_DEVICE_STATUS:
> > +                   dev_dbg(dev, "found Status capability (0x%x)\n",
> > +                           offset);
> 
> That 80 character limit is no longer a requirement. Can you just make
> this one line? And perhaps change 'found' to 'Found' ?
> 

Funny that.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20201111073449.ga16...@infradead.org/

> > +                   cxlm->status.regs = register_block;
> > +                   break;
> > +           case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_PRIMARY_MAILBOX:
> > +                   dev_dbg(dev, "found Mailbox capability (0x%x)\n",
> > +                           offset);
> > +                   cxlm->mbox.regs = register_block;
> > +                   break;
> > +           case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_SECONDARY_MAILBOX:
> > +                   dev_dbg(dev,
> > +                           "found Secondary Mailbox capability (0x%x)\n",
> > +                           offset);
> > +                   break;
> > +           case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_MEMDEV:
> > +                   dev_dbg(dev, "found Memory Device capability (0x%x)\n",
> > +                           offset);
> > +                   cxlm->mem.regs = register_block;
> > +                   break;
> > +           default:
> > +                   dev_warn(dev, "Unknown cap ID: %d (0x%x)\n", cap_id,
> > +                            offset);
> > +                   break;
> > +           }
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   if (!cxlm->status.regs || !cxlm->mbox.regs || !cxlm->mem.regs) {
> > +           dev_err(dev, "registers not found: %s%s%s\n",
> > +                   !cxlm->status.regs ? "status " : "",
> > +                   !cxlm->mbox.regs ? "mbox " : "",
> > +                   !cxlm->mem.regs ? "mem" : "");
> > +           return -ENXIO;
> > +   }
> > +
> > +   return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int cxl_mem_setup_mailbox(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> > +{
> > +   const int cap = cxl_read_mbox_reg32(cxlm, CXLDEV_MB_CAPS_OFFSET);
> > +
> > +   cxlm->mbox.payload_size =
> > +           1 << CXL_GET_FIELD(cap, CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE);
> > +
> 
> I think the static analyzers are not going to be happy that you are not
> checking the value of `cap` before using it.
> 
> Perhaps you should check that first before doing the manipulations?
> 

I'm not following the request. CXL_GET_FIELD is just doing the shift and mask on
cap.

Can you explain what you're hoping to see?

> > +   /* 8.2.8.4.3 */
> > +   if (cxlm->mbox.payload_size < 256) {
> 
> #define for 256?

Reply via email to