Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 03/14] soundwire: Add Master registration

[Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:03:19 +0200,
> Vinod Koul wrote:

> > +int sdw_add_bus_master(struct sdw_bus *bus)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	if (!bus->dev) {
> > +		pr_err("SoundWire bus has no device");
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	mutex_init(&bus->bus_lock);
> > +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bus->slaves);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * SDW is an enumerable bus, but devices can be powered off. So,
> > +	 * they won't be able to report as present.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Create Slave devices based on Slaves described in
> > +	 * the respective firmware (ACPI/DT)
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) && bus->dev && ACPI_HANDLE(bus->dev))
> > +		ret = sdw_acpi_find_slaves(bus);
> > +	else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) && bus->dev && bus->dev->of_node)
> 
> The bus->dev NULL check is already done at the beginning of the
> function, so here are superfluous.

right

> > +static int sdw_delete_slave(struct device *dev, void *data)
> > +{
> > +	struct sdw_slave *slave = dev_to_sdw_dev(dev);
> > +	struct sdw_bus *bus = slave->bus;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&bus->bus_lock);
> > +	if (!list_empty(&bus->slaves))
> > +		list_del(&slave->node);
> 
> You can perform list_del_init() without empty check.

Better :)

> 
> > +void sdw_extract_slave_id(struct sdw_bus *bus,
> > +			unsigned long long addr, struct sdw_slave_id *id)
> 
> Use u64 instead.

okay

> > +{
> > +	dev_dbg(bus->dev, "SDW Slave Addr: %llx", addr);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Spec definition
> > +	 *   Register		Bit	Contents
> > +	 *   DevId_0 [7:4]	47:44	sdw_version
> > +	 *   DevId_0 [3:0]	43:40	unique_id
> > +	 *   DevId_1		39:32	mfg_id [15:8]
> > +	 *   DevId_2		31:24	mfg_id [7:0]
> > +	 *   DevId_3		23:16	part_id [15:8]
> > +	 *   DevId_4		15:08	part_id [7:0]
> > +	 *   DevId_5		07:00	class_id
> > +	 */
> > +	id->sdw_version = (addr >> 44) & GENMASK(3, 0);
> > +	id->unique_id = (addr >> 40) & GENMASK(3, 0);
> > +	id->mfg_id = (addr >> 24) & GENMASK(15, 0);
> > +	id->part_id = (addr >> 8) & GENMASK(15, 0);
> > +	id->class_id = addr & GENMASK(7, 0);
> > +
> > +	dev_info(bus->dev,
> > +		"SDW Slave class_id %x, part_id %x, mfg_id %x, unique_id %x, version %x",
> > +				id->class_id, id->part_id, id->mfg_id,
> > +				id->unique_id, id->sdw_version);
> > +
> 
> Do we want to print a message always at each invocation?

Not really, lets make it debug

> > +static int sdw_slave_add(struct sdw_bus *bus,
> > +		struct sdw_slave_id *id, struct fwnode_handle *fwnode)
> > +{
> > +	struct sdw_slave *slave;
> > +	char name[32];
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	slave = kzalloc(sizeof(*slave), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!slave)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	/* Initialize data structure */
> > +	memcpy(&slave->id, id, sizeof(*id));
> > +
> > +	/* name shall be sdw:link:mfg:part:class:unique */
> > +	snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "sdw:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x",
> > +			bus->link_id, id->mfg_id, id->part_id,
> > +			id->class_id, id->unique_id);
> 
> You can set the name directly via dev_set_name().  It's printf format,
> after all.

right, am using it but with this string :D

> > +	slave->dev.parent = bus->dev;
> > +	slave->dev.fwnode = fwnode;
> > +	dev_set_name(&slave->dev, "%s", name);
> > +	slave->dev.release = sdw_slave_release;
> > +	slave->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type;
> > +	slave->bus = bus;
> > +	slave->status = SDW_SLAVE_UNATTACHED;
> > +	slave->dev_num = 0;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&bus->bus_lock);
> > +	list_add_tail(&slave->node, &bus->slaves);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&bus->bus_lock);
> > +
> > +	ret = device_register(&slave->dev);
> > +	if (ret) {
> > +		dev_err(bus->dev, "Failed to add slave: ret %d\n", ret);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * On err, don't free but drop ref as this will be freed
> > +		 * when release method is invoked.
> > +		 */
> > +		put_device(&slave->dev);
> 
> Wouldn't it leave a stale link to bus?

yes that needs to be removed too, thanks for pointing

-- 
~Vinod