Re: [PATCH net-next v4 05/13] net: wwan: t7xx: Add control port

["Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Ricardo Martinez wrote:

> From: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@mediatek.com>
> 
> Control Port implements driver control messages such as modem-host
> handshaking, controls port enumeration, and handles exception messages.
> 
> The handshaking process between the driver and the modem happens during
> the init sequence. The process involves the exchange of a list of
> supported runtime features to make sure that modem and host are ready
> to provide proper feature lists including port enumeration. Further
> features can be enabled and controlled in this handshaking process.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Haijun Liu <haijun.liu@mediatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chandrashekar Devegowda <chandrashekar.devegowda@intel.com>
> Co-developed-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Martinez <ricardo.martinez@linux.intel.com>
> ---

> +	/* Fill runtime feature */
> +	for (i = 0; i < FEATURE_COUNT; i++) {
> +		u8 md_feature_mask = FIELD_GET(FEATURE_MSK, md_feature->feature_set[i]);
> +
> +		memset(&rt_feature, 0, sizeof(rt_feature));
> +		rt_feature.feature_id = i;
> +
> +		switch (md_feature_mask) {
> +		case MTK_FEATURE_DOES_NOT_EXIST:
> +		case MTK_FEATURE_MUST_BE_SUPPORTED:
> +			rt_feature.support_info = md_feature->feature_set[i];
> +			break;
> +
> +		default:
> +			break;

Please remove empty default blocks from all patches.


> +		}
> +
> +		if (FIELD_GET(FEATURE_MSK, rt_feature.support_info) !=
> +		    MTK_FEATURE_MUST_BE_SUPPORTED) {
> +			memcpy(rt_data, &rt_feature, sizeof(rt_feature));
> +			rt_data += sizeof(rt_feature);
> +		}
> +
> +		packet_size += sizeof(struct mtk_runtime_feature);
> +	}

Is it intentional these two additions (rt_data and packet_size) are on
different sides of the if block?


> +static int port_ctl_init(struct t7xx_port *port)
> +{
> +	struct t7xx_port_static *port_static = port->port_static;
> +
> +	port->skb_handler = &control_msg_handler;
> +	port->thread = kthread_run(port_ctl_rx_thread, port, "%s", port_static->name);
> +	if (IS_ERR(port->thread)) {
> +		dev_err(port->dev, "Failed to start port control thread\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(port->thread);
> +	}
> +
> +	port->rx_length_th = CTRL_QUEUE_MAXLEN;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void port_ctl_uninit(struct t7xx_port *port)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> +
> +	if (port->thread)
> +		kthread_stop(port->thread);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&port->rx_wq.lock, flags);
> +	while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&port->rx_skb_list)) != NULL)
> +		dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->rx_wq.lock, flags);
> +}

I wonder if the uninit should set rx_length_th to 0 to prevent
further accumulation of skbs?

> +	FSM_EVENT_AP_HS2_EXIT,

Never used anywhere.


-- 
 i.