On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:35 AM Vadym Kochan <vadym.koc...@plvision.eu> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 10:12:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:52 PM Vadym Kochan <vadym.koc...@plvision.eu>
> > wrote:
...
> > > + words[3] |= FIELD_PREP(PRESTERA_W3_HW_DEV_NUM, (dsa->hw_dev_num
> > > >> 5));
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> I am not sure 5 needs to be defined as macro as it just moves
> hw_dev_num's higher bits into the last word.
And why 5? I want 6, for example!
...
> > > + err = prestera_switch_init(sw);
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + kfree(sw);
> >
> > > + return err;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> >
> > return err;
> >
> why not keep 'return 0' as indication of success point ?
Simple longer, but I'm not insisting. Your choice.
...
> > > + if (b == 0)
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma,
> > > + ring->bufs[b -
> > > 1].desc,
> > > + buf->desc_dma);
> > > +
> > > + if (b == PRESTERA_SDMA_RX_DESC_PER_Q - 1)
> > > + prestera_sdma_rx_desc_set_next(sdma,
> > > buf->desc,
> > > +
> > > head->desc_dma);
> >
> > I guess knowing what the allowed range of bnum the above can be optimized.
> >
> You mean to replace PRESTERA_SDMA_RX_DESC_PER_Q by bnum ?
I don't know what you meant in above. It might be a bug, it might be
that bnum is redundant and this definition may be used everywhere...
But I believe there is room for improvement when I see pattern like
for (i < X) {
...
if (i == 0) {
...
} else if (i == X - 1) {
...
}
}
Either it can be while-loop (or do-while) with better semantics for
the first and last item to handle or something else.
Example from another review [1] in case you wonder how changes can be
made. Just think about it.
[1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg60826.html (before)
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pci/msg62043.html (after)
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
