linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] soundwire: intel: follow documentation sequences for SHIM registers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200323123140.GM72691@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 18:01:40 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
        slawomir.blauciak@...el.com,
        Bard liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Hui Wang <hui.wang@...onical.com>,
        Rander Wang <rander.wang@...el.com>,
        Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] soundwire: intel: follow documentation sequences for
 SHIM registers

On 20-03-20, 09:20, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:

> > > @@ -283,11 +284,48 @@ static int intel_link_power_up(struct sdw_intel *sdw)
> > >   {
> > >   	unsigned int link_id = sdw->instance;
> > >   	void __iomem *shim = sdw->link_res->shim;
> > > +	u32 *shim_mask = sdw->link_res->shim_mask;
> > 
> > this is a local pointer, so the one defined previously is not used.
> 
> No idea what you are saying, it's the same address so changes to *shim_mask
> will be the same as in *sdw->link_res->shim_mask.

There seems to be too many shim_masks, in global structs, then pointer
and then local ones. It is really confusing...

> > > +	struct sdw_bus *bus = &sdw->cdns.bus;
> > > +	struct sdw_master_prop *prop = &bus->prop;
> > >   	int spa_mask, cpa_mask;
> > > -	int link_control, ret;
> > > +	int link_control;
> > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > +	u32 syncprd;
> > > +	u32 sync_reg;
> > >   	mutex_lock(sdw->link_res->shim_lock);
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The hardware relies on an internal counter,
> > > +	 * typically 4kHz, to generate the SoundWire SSP -
> > > +	 * which defines a 'safe' synchronization point
> > > +	 * between commands and audio transport and allows for
> > > +	 * multi link synchronization. The SYNCPRD value is
> > > +	 * only dependent on the oscillator clock provided to
> > > +	 * the IP, so adjust based on _DSD properties reported
> > > +	 * in DSDT tables. The values reported are based on
> > > +	 * either 24MHz (CNL/CML) or 38.4 MHz (ICL/TGL+).
> > 
> > Sorry this looks quite bad to read, we have 80 chars, so please use
> > like below:
> > 
> > 	/*
> >           * The hardware relies on an internal counter, typically 4kHz,
> >           * to generate the SoundWire SSP - which defines a 'safe'
> >           * synchronization point between commands and audio transport
> >           * and allows for multi link synchronization. The SYNCPRD value
> >           * is only dependent on the oscillator clock provided to
> >           * the IP, so adjust based on _DSD properties reported in DSDT
> >           * tables. The values reported are based on either 24MHz
> >           * (CNL/CML) or 38.4 MHz (ICL/TGL+).
> > 	 */
> 
> Are we really going to have an emacs vs vi discussion here?

What has that got to do with editor to use, nothing imo.

All I am asking is to use 80 chars here and make it look decent to
read. And not truncate at 60 ish chars which seems above

-- 
~Vinod