[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200413100321.v4.3.Ie88ce5ccfc0c6055903ccca5286ae28ed3b85ed3@changeid>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 10:04:08 -0700
From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
Cc: swboyd@...omium.org, mka@...omium.org,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, evgreen@...omium.org,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 03/10] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Fold tcs_ctrl_write() into its single caller
I was trying to write documentation for the functions in rpmh-rsc and
I got to tcs_ctrl_write(). The documentation for the function would
have been: "This is the core of rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data(); all the
caller does is error-check and then call this".
Having the error checks in a separate function doesn't help for
anything since:
- There are no other callers that need to bypass the error checks.
- It's less documenting. When I read tcs_ctrl_write() I kept
wondering if I need to handle cases other than ACTIVE_ONLY or cases
with more commands than could fit in a TCS. This is obvious when
the error checks and code are together.
- The function just isn't that long, so there's no problem
understanding the combined function.
Things were even more confusing because the two functions names didn't
make obvious (at least to me) their relationship.
Simplify by folding one function into the other.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Reviewed-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
Tested-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
---
Changes in v4: None
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2: None
drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
index 439a0eadabf1..d9177324c6a2 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
@@ -587,27 +587,6 @@ static int find_slots(struct tcs_group *tcs, const struct tcs_request *msg,
return 0;
}
-static int tcs_ctrl_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
-{
- struct tcs_group *tcs;
- int tcs_id = 0, cmd_id = 0;
- unsigned long flags;
- int ret;
-
- tcs = get_tcs_for_msg(drv, msg);
- if (IS_ERR(tcs))
- return PTR_ERR(tcs);
-
- spin_lock_irqsave(&tcs->lock, flags);
- /* find the TCS id and the command in the TCS to write to */
- ret = find_slots(tcs, msg, &tcs_id, &cmd_id);
- if (!ret)
- __tcs_buffer_write(drv, tcs_id, cmd_id, msg);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tcs->lock, flags);
-
- return ret;
-}
-
/**
* rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data: Write request to the controller
*
@@ -618,6 +597,11 @@ static int tcs_ctrl_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
*/
int rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
{
+ struct tcs_group *tcs;
+ int tcs_id = 0, cmd_id = 0;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ int ret;
+
if (!msg || !msg->cmds || !msg->num_cmds ||
msg->num_cmds > MAX_RPMH_PAYLOAD) {
pr_err("Payload error\n");
@@ -628,7 +612,18 @@ int rpmh_rsc_write_ctrl_data(struct rsc_drv *drv, const struct tcs_request *msg)
if (msg->state == RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE)
return -EINVAL;
- return tcs_ctrl_write(drv, msg);
+ tcs = get_tcs_for_msg(drv, msg);
+ if (IS_ERR(tcs))
+ return PTR_ERR(tcs);
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&tcs->lock, flags);
+ /* find the TCS id and the command in the TCS to write to */
+ ret = find_slots(tcs, msg, &tcs_id, &cmd_id);
+ if (!ret)
+ __tcs_buffer_write(drv, tcs_id, cmd_id, msg);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tcs->lock, flags);
+
+ return ret;
}
/**
--
2.26.0.110.g2183baf09c-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists