linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next 4/6] soc: ti: k3-ringacc: add request pair of rings api.

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

Message-ID: <45e136da-12c4-044e-dab5-4e9f9d406be9@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 15:33:34 +0300
From:   Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
To:     Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>
CC:     Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 4/6] soc: ti: k3-ringacc: add request pair of rings
 api.



On 01/07/2020 15.12, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01/07/2020 14:54, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Hi Grygorii,
>>
>> On 01/07/2020 13.30, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>> Add new API k3_ringacc_request_rings_pair() to request pair of rings at
>>> once, as in the most cases Rings are used with DMA channels, which
>>> need to
>>> request pair of rings - one to feed DMA with descriptors (TX/RX FDQ) and
>>> one to receive completions (RX/TX CQ). This will allow to simplify
>>> Ringacc
>>> API users.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.c       | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   include/linux/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.h |  4 ++++
>>>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.c b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.c
>>> index 8a8f31d59e24..4cf1150de88e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-ringacc.c
>>> @@ -322,6 +322,30 @@ struct k3_ring *k3_ringacc_request_ring(struct
>>> k3_ringacc *ringacc,
>>>   }
>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(k3_ringacc_request_ring);
>>>   +int k3_ringacc_request_rings_pair(struct k3_ringacc *ringacc,
>>> +                  int fwd_id, int compl_id,
>>> +                  struct k3_ring **fwd_ring,
>>> +                  struct k3_ring **compl_ring)
>>
>> Would you consider re-arranging the parameter list to:
>> int k3_ringacc_request_rings_pair(struct k3_ringacc *ringacc,
>>                   struct k3_ring **fwd_ring, int fwd_id,
>>                   struct k3_ring **compl_ring, int compl_id)
>>
> 
> i think it's more common to have input parameters first.

That's true. I just like parameters grouped.
(ringacc, fwd_id, fwd_ring, compl_id, compl_ring)

having said that, I don't have objection to leave things as they are.

> 
>>> +{
>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +    if (!fwd_ring || !compl_ring)
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +    *fwd_ring = k3_ringacc_request_ring(ringacc, fwd_id, 0);
>>> +    if (!(*fwd_ring))
>>> +        return -ENODEV;
>>> +
>>> +    *compl_ring = k3_ringacc_request_ring(ringacc, compl_id, 0);
>>> +    if (!(*compl_ring)) {
>>> +        k3_ringacc_ring_free(*fwd_ring);
>>> +        ret = -ENODEV;
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(k3_ringacc_request_rings_pair);
>>> +
> 
> 
> 

- Péter

Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki