Re: [PATCH 06/49] ath11k: add ce.c

[Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan <vthiagar-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>]

On 2019-08-21 01:53, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 18:47 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> +static const struct ce_attr host_ce_config_wlan[] = {
>> +	/* CE0: host->target HTC control and raw streams */
>> +	{
>> +		.flags = CE_ATTR_FLAGS,
>> +		.src_nentries = 16,
>> +		.src_sz_max = 2048,
>> +		.dest_nentries = 0,
>> +	},
>> 
> Curious - this looks a lot like a similar thing in AHB, but there you
> did it all in little endian? Totally different really, just looks
> similar, or what's the reason?

This particular table is for the driver use only. This has Copy Engine 
configurations
and any Copy Engine specific send/receive callbacks. The other in ahb.c 
is the configuration
sent to firmware.

> 
>> +	ring->skb[write_index] = skb;
>> +	write_index = CE_RING_IDX_INCR(nentries_mask, write_index);
>> +	ring->write_index = write_index;
>> +
>> +	ath11k_hal_srng_access_end(ab, srng);
>> +
>> +	spin_unlock_bh(&srng->lock);
>> +
>> +	pipe->rx_buf_needed--;
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +err:
>> +	ath11k_hal_srng_access_end(ab, srng);
>> +
>> +	spin_unlock_bh(&srng->lock);
> 
> Seems like you could unify those unlock paths, the rx_buf_needed-- can
> almost certainly be before the access_end/unlock, and then just set
> ret=0?

Sure.

> 
>> +static int ath11k_ce_completed_send_next(struct ath11k_ce_pipe *pipe,
>> +					 struct sk_buff **skb)
> 
> Personally, I'd have preferred to have the *skb as the return value, 
> and
> use ERR_PTR()/IS_ERR() etc. to encode the error values, rather than the
> double pointer.

Ok.

> 
>> +{
>> +	struct ath11k_base *ab = pipe->ab;
>> +	struct hal_srng *srng;
>> +	unsigned int sw_index;
>> +	unsigned int nentries_mask;
>> +	u32 *desc;
>> +	int ret = 0;
> 
> Maybe don't initialize that to a success value, just for robustness? 
> You
> don't actually need to initialize it at all though if you set ret=0 
> when
> you actually succeed, which might be even nicer given that the function
> is simple enough for the compiler to figure out if you used 'ret'
> uninitialized or not.

Ok.

> 
>> +static struct ath11k_ce_ring *
>> +ath11k_ce_alloc_ring(struct ath11k_base *ab, int nentries, int 
>> desc_sz)
>> +{
>> +	struct ath11k_ce_ring *ce_ring;
>> +	dma_addr_t base_addr;
>> +
>> +	ce_ring = kzalloc(sizeof(*ce_ring) + (nentries * 
>> sizeof(*ce_ring->skb)),
>> +			  GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> You should probably use struct_size().

Sure.

Thanks.

Vasanth