From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:36978 "EHLO mail-wg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750837AbaLOJE0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:04:26 -0500 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so14066180wgh.16 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 01:04:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 10:04:19 +0100 From: Alexander Aring Subject: Re: [PATCH bluetooth-next 2/5] at86rf230: make at86rf230_async_error inline Message-ID: <20141215090417.GA7616@omega> References: <1418599232-6267-1-git-send-email-alex.aring@gmail.com> <1418599232-6267-3-git-send-email-alex.aring@gmail.com> <250801d01841$3d4a6150$b7df23f0$@samsung.com> <20141215083938.GB7153@omega> <250c01d01845$b0e9b260$12bd1720$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <250c01d01845$b0e9b260$12bd1720$@samsung.com> Sender: linux-wpan-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stefan Schmidt Cc: linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:01:18AM +0000, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Hello. > > On 15/12/14 09:39, Alexander Aring wrote: > >On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:29:26AM +0000, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > >>Hello. > >> > >>On 15/12/14 00:20, Alexander Aring wrote: > >>>This patch makes the at86rf230_async_error inline. This function is > >>>small enough to handle inline. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring > >>>--- > >>> drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > >>>b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > >>>index 4e983b3..430d3bd 100644 > >>>--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c > >>>@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ at86rf230_async_error_recover(void *context) > >>> ieee802154_wake_queue(lp->hw); > >>> } > >>> > >>>-static void > >>>+static inline void > >>> at86rf230_async_error(struct at86rf230_local *lp, > >>> struct at86rf230_state_change *ctx, int rc) > >>> { > >> > >>Hopefully we would not need this error function often enough to have a > >>real > >>benefit for inline but with only two function calls it should be small > >>enough anyway for inline. > > > >With Werner Almesberger words "If this fails something goes really wrong > >with your spi controller and you can only save that the kernel doesn't > >run amok" or something like that. > > > >I also heard that we don't need to check errors for the spi calls. > > > >For now I don't know what happens if an error occurs here, I activate > >the irq again (if disabled before) and try to run some TRX_OFF to > >RX_AACK_ON recover, so we can receive some frames again. > > > >But I think it depends on "error case" if this mechanism really helps. > > > >Nevertheless, still better than doing nothing. > > Sure, handling the case is good. Just wondered about the need for inline > here but as I wrote with two calls this functions is small enough I would > say. > ok. :-) - Alex