[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210201174136.GF197521@fedora>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 12:41:36 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
Cc: linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>,
Chris Browy <cbrowy@...ry-design.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
daniel.lll@...baba-inc.com,
"John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@...ron.com>,
"Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities
> +static int cxl_mem_setup_regs(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = &cxlm->pdev->dev;
> + int cap, cap_count;
> + u64 cap_array;
> +
> + cap_array = readq(cxlm->regs + CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_OFFSET);
> + if (CXL_GET_FIELD(cap_array, CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_ID) != CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_CAP_ID)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + cap_count = CXL_GET_FIELD(cap_array, CXLDEV_CAP_ARRAY_COUNT);
> +
> + for (cap = 1; cap <= cap_count; cap++) {
> + void __iomem *register_block;
> + u32 offset;
> + u16 cap_id;
> +
> + cap_id = readl(cxlm->regs + cap * 0x10) & 0xffff;
> + offset = readl(cxlm->regs + cap * 0x10 + 0x4);
> + register_block = cxlm->regs + offset;
> +
> + switch (cap_id) {
> + case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_DEVICE_STATUS:
> + dev_dbg(dev, "found Status capability (0x%x)\n",
> + offset);
That 80 character limit is no longer a requirement. Can you just make
this one line? And perhaps change 'found' to 'Found' ?
> + cxlm->status.regs = register_block;
> + break;
> + case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_PRIMARY_MAILBOX:
> + dev_dbg(dev, "found Mailbox capability (0x%x)\n",
> + offset);
> + cxlm->mbox.regs = register_block;
> + break;
> + case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_SECONDARY_MAILBOX:
> + dev_dbg(dev,
> + "found Secondary Mailbox capability (0x%x)\n",
> + offset);
> + break;
> + case CXLDEV_CAP_CAP_ID_MEMDEV:
> + dev_dbg(dev, "found Memory Device capability (0x%x)\n",
> + offset);
> + cxlm->mem.regs = register_block;
> + break;
> + default:
> + dev_warn(dev, "Unknown cap ID: %d (0x%x)\n", cap_id,
> + offset);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (!cxlm->status.regs || !cxlm->mbox.regs || !cxlm->mem.regs) {
> + dev_err(dev, "registers not found: %s%s%s\n",
> + !cxlm->status.regs ? "status " : "",
> + !cxlm->mbox.regs ? "mbox " : "",
> + !cxlm->mem.regs ? "mem" : "");
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int cxl_mem_setup_mailbox(struct cxl_mem *cxlm)
> +{
> + const int cap = cxl_read_mbox_reg32(cxlm, CXLDEV_MB_CAPS_OFFSET);
> +
> + cxlm->mbox.payload_size =
> + 1 << CXL_GET_FIELD(cap, CXLDEV_MB_CAP_PAYLOAD_SIZE);
> +
I think the static analyzers are not going to be happy that you are not
checking the value of `cap` before using it.
Perhaps you should check that first before doing the manipulations?
> + /* 8.2.8.4.3 */
> + if (cxlm->mbox.payload_size < 256) {
#define for 256?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists