Re: [PATCH v10 4/5] QE/CPM: move muram management functions to qe_common

Scott Wood
2015-09-22T02:26:09Z

On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 21:23 -0500, Zhao Qiang-B45475 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 06:54AM +0800, Wood Scott-B07421 wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 6:54 AM
> > To: Zhao Qiang-B45475
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> > lauraa@codeaurora.org; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; benh@kernel.crashing.org; Li
> > Yang-Leo-R58472; paulus@samba.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/5] QE/CPM: move muram management functions to
> > qe_common
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 03:15:20PM +0800, Zhao Qiang wrote:
> > > QE and CPM have the same muram, they use the same management
> > > functions. Now QE support both ARM and PowerPC, it is necessary to
> > > move QE to "driver/soc", so move the muram management functions from
> > > cpm_common to qe_common for preparing to move QE code to "driver/soc"
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Qiang <qiang.zhao@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes for v2:
> > > - no changes
> > > Changes for v3:
> > > - no changes
> > > Changes for v4:
> > > - no changes
> > > Changes for v5:
> > > - no changes
> > > Changes for v6:
> > > - using genalloc instead rheap to manage QE MURAM
> > > - remove qe_reset from platform file, using
> > > - subsys_initcall to call qe_init function.
> >
> > Why is the init change in the same patch as moving the muram code?
> >
> > > Changes for v7:
> > > - move this patch from 3/3 to 2/3
> > > - convert cpm with genalloc
> > > - check for gen_pool allocation failure Changes for v8:
> > > - rebase
> > > - move BD_SC_* macro instead of copy
> > > Changes for v9:
> > > - doesn't modify CPM, add a new patch to modify.
> > > - rebase
> > > Changes for v10:
> > > - rebase
> > >
> > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm.h | 59 --------
> > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/qe.h | 51 ++++++-
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/km83xx.c | 2 -
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc832x_mds.c | 2 -
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc832x_rdb.c | 2 -
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc836x_mds.c | 2 -
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc836x_rdk.c | 3 -
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/common.c | 1 -
> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm_common.c | 206 +---------------------
> > ---
> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe.c | 15 ++
> > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe_common.c | 242
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 12 files changed, 302 insertions(+), 285 deletions(-) create mode
> > > 100644 arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe_common.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm.h
> > > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm.h index 4398a6c..003a736 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm.h
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cpm.h
> > > @@ -93,22 +93,6 @@ typedef struct cpm_buf_desc {
> > > */
> > >
> > > #define BD_SC_EMPTY (0x8000) /* Receive is empty */
> > > -#define BD_SC_READY (0x8000) /* Transmit is ready */
> > > -#define BD_SC_WRAP (0x2000) /* Last buffer descriptor */
> > > -#define BD_SC_INTRPT (0x1000) /* Interrupt on change */
> > > -#define BD_SC_LAST (0x0800) /* Last buffer in frame */
> > > -#define BD_SC_TC (0x0400) /* Transmit CRC */
> > > -#define BD_SC_CM (0x0200) /* Continuous mode */
> > > -#define BD_SC_ID (0x0100) /* Rec'd too many idles */
> > > -#define BD_SC_P (0x0100) /* xmt preamble */
> > > -#define BD_SC_BR (0x0020) /* Break received */
> > > -#define BD_SC_FR (0x0010) /* Framing error */
> > > -#define BD_SC_PR (0x0008) /* Parity error */
> > > -#define BD_SC_NAK (0x0004) /* NAK - did not respond */
> > > -#define BD_SC_OV (0x0002) /* Overrun */
> > > -#define BD_SC_UN (0x0002) /* Underrun */
> > > -#define BD_SC_CD (0x0001) /* */
> > > -#define BD_SC_CL (0x0001) /* Collision */
> >
> > What does this have to do with muram?
>
> BD is Buffer Descriptors, it is in muram.

What does it have to do with the muram *allocator*?

> >
> > I've said many times now that any changes to the code, including renaming
> > functions, needs to be a separate patch from moving the code.
>
> I have split a patch to two patches, However, Maybe I misunderstand your
> means.

I didn't say "split it into two patches, however you like". I said to have
all changes in one patch, and the other patch be nothing but a move.
Renaming the functions counts as a change.

> So if the patch just do the renaming and moving cpm_muram function to
> qe_muram function,
> Does it ok?

No.

-Scott