From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add runtime timeslots changes support
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:26:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240124162646.24bf9235@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc421c38-66b7-4d4e-abfa-051eccbf793c@linux.dev>
Hi Vadim,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:10:46 +0000
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev> wrote:
[...]
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + u32 slot_map, struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = 0;
> > + map = slot_map;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
> > + ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots 0x%llx -> (0x%llx,0x%llx)\n",
> > + map, ts_mask_avail, ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_info->tx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + const struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info, u32 *slot_map)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
>
> Starting from here ...
>
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask != ts_info->tx_ts_mask) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask, ts_info->tx_ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
> > + map = 0;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
> > + map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
>
> till here the block looks like copy of the block from previous function.
> It worth to make a separate function for it, I think.
>
> > + if (map >= BIT_ULL(32)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Slot map out of 32bit (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *slot_map = map;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
[...]
I am not so sure. There are slighty differences between the two functions.
The error messages and, in particular, the loop in qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map() is:
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = 0;
map = slot_map;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
whereas it is the following in qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info():
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
map = 0;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
ts_map and map initializations are not the same, i and bit are not used for
the same purpose and the computed value is not computed based on the same
information.
With that pointed, I am not sure that having some common code for both
function will be relevant. Your opinion ?
Best regards,
Hervé
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
To: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add runtime timeslots changes support
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:26:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240124162646.24bf9235@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc421c38-66b7-4d4e-abfa-051eccbf793c@linux.dev>
Hi Vadim,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:10:46 +0000
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev> wrote:
[...]
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + u32 slot_map, struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = 0;
> > + map = slot_map;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
> > + ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots 0x%llx -> (0x%llx,0x%llx)\n",
> > + map, ts_mask_avail, ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_info->tx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + const struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info, u32 *slot_map)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
>
> Starting from here ...
>
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask != ts_info->tx_ts_mask) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx timeslots mismatch (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask, ts_info->tx_ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
> > + map = 0;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
> > + map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
>
> till here the block looks like copy of the block from previous function.
> It worth to make a separate function for it, I think.
>
> > + if (map >= BIT_ULL(32)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Slot map out of 32bit (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *slot_map = map;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
[...]
I am not so sure. There are slighty differences between the two functions.
The error messages and, in particular, the loop in qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map() is:
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = 0;
map = slot_map;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
whereas it is the following in qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info():
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
map = 0;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
ts_map and map initializations are not the same, i and bit are not used for
the same purpose and the computed value is not computed based on the same
information.
With that pointed, I am not sure that having some common code for both
function will be relevant. Your opinion ?
Best regards,
Hervé
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-24 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-23 16:49 [PATCH 0/4] Add support for QMC HDLC Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] net: wan: " Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-24 10:03 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-24 10:03 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-24 14:39 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-24 14:39 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` [PATCH 2/4] MAINTAINERS: Add the Freescale QMC HDLC driver entry Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add runtime timeslots changes support Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-24 10:10 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-24 10:10 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-24 15:26 ` Herve Codina [this message]
2024-01-24 15:26 ` Herve Codina
2024-01-24 16:19 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-24 16:19 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2024-01-23 16:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] net: wan: fsl_qmc_hdlc: Add framer support Herve Codina
2024-01-23 16:49 ` Herve Codina
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240124162646.24bf9235@bootlin.com \
--to=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.