[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9b993aa6-f432-89f6-9195-05b584398df2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 18:30:44 +0600
From: Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Soundwire: Initialize multi_link with fwnode props
On 8/15/22 12:37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:08:07AM +0600, Khalid Masum wrote:
>> On 8/14/22 15:45, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 02:04:15PM +0600, Khalid Masum wrote:
>>>> According to the TODO, In sw_bus_master_add, bus->multi_link is to be
>>>> populated with properties from FW node props. Make this happen by
>>>> creating a new fwnode_handle flag FWNODE_FLAG_MULTI_LINKED and use
>>>> the flag to store the multi_link value from intel_link_startup. Use
>>>> this flag to initialize bus->multi_link.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> I do not think adding a new flag for fwnode_handle is a good idea.
>>>> So, what would be the best way to initialize bus->multilink with
>>>> fwnode props?
>>>>
>>>> -- Khalid Masum
>>>>
>>>> drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 4 ++--
>>>> drivers/soundwire/intel.c | 1 +
>>>> include/linux/fwnode.h | 1 +
>>>> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>>> index a2bfb0434a67..80df1672c60b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c
>>>> @@ -74,9 +74,9 @@ int sdw_bus_master_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, struct device *parent,
>>>> /*
>>>> * Initialize multi_link flag
>>>> - * TODO: populate this flag by reading property from FW node
>>>> */
>>>> - bus->multi_link = false;
>>>> + bus->multi_link = (fwnode->flags & FWNODE_FLAG_MULTI_LINKED)
>>>> + == FWNODE_FLAG_MULTI_LINKED;
>
> I missed that this was an if statement here, please write this to be
> more obvious and readable.
>
>>>> if (bus->ops->read_prop) {
>>>> ret = bus->ops->read_prop(bus);
>>>> if (ret < 0) {
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/intel.c b/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
>>>> index 505c5ef061e3..034d1c523ddf 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/soundwire/intel.c
>>>> @@ -1347,6 +1347,7 @@ int intel_link_startup(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev)
>>>> */
>>>> bus->multi_link = true;
>>>> bus->hw_sync_min_links = 1;
>>>> + dev->fwnode->flags |= FWNODE_FLAG_MULTI_LINKED;
>>>> }
>>>> /* Initialize shim, controller */
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/fwnode.h b/include/linux/fwnode.h
>>>> index 9a81c4410b9f..446a52744953 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/fwnode.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/fwnode.h
>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct device;
>>>> #define FWNODE_FLAG_NOT_DEVICE BIT(1)
>>>> #define FWNODE_FLAG_INITIALIZED BIT(2)
>>>> #define FWNODE_FLAG_NEEDS_CHILD_BOUND_ON_ADD BIT(3)
>>>> +#define FWNODE_FLAG_MULTI_LINKED BIT(4)
>>>
>>> What does this commit actually change?
>>
>> The new flag will lets us save if the device has multilink in fwnode_handle
>> whenever needed.
>> Then for soundwire/intel, save the multi_link flag into fwnode during
>> startup.
>> Later at master_add, as written in todo, initialize the multilink flag with
>> fwnode's flag property.
>
> And what does that allow to happen? What changes with all of this?
As suggested by Pierre-Louis Bossart these changes are not necessary and
the TODO is to be removed. Earlier my intention was to create a new flag
that lets us know whether multi_link is to be read from
sdw_bus_master_add just as instructed in TODO.
I shall send another patch, that removes the TODO, as suggested by
Pierre-Louis Bossart.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
thanks,
-- Khalid Masum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists