[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f71f1f59-f729-2c8c-f6da-8474be2074b1@fintek.com.tw>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:11:20 +0800
From: Peter Hong <peter_hong@...tek.com.tw>
To: Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
CC: <wg@...ndegger.com>, <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
<Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<frank.jungclaus@....eu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-can@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<hpeter+linux_kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] can: usb: f81604: add Fintek F81604 support
Hi Vincent,
Vincent MAILHOL 於 2023/3/21 下午 11:50 寫道:
>> +static netdev_tx_t f81604_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> + struct net_device *netdev)
>> +{
>> + struct can_frame *cf = (struct can_frame *)skb->data;
>> + struct f81604_port_priv *priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
>> + struct net_device_stats *stats = &netdev->stats;
>> + int status;
>> + u8 *ptr;
>> + u32 id;
>> +
>> + if (can_dropped_invalid_skb(netdev, skb))
>> + return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>> +
>> + netif_stop_queue(netdev);
>> +
>> + ptr = priv->bulk_write_buffer;
>> + memset(ptr, 0, F81604_DATA_SIZE);
>> +
>> + ptr[0] = F81604_CMD_DATA;
>> + ptr[1] = min_t(u8, cf->can_dlc & 0xf, 8);
>> +
>> + if (cf->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG) {
>> + id = (cf->can_id & CAN_ERR_MASK) << 3;
>> + ptr[1] |= F81604_EFF_BIT;
>> + ptr[2] = (id >> 24) & 0xff;
>> + ptr[3] = (id >> 16) & 0xff;
>> + ptr[4] = (id >> 8) & 0xff;
>> + ptr[5] = (id >> 0) & 0xff;
>> + memcpy(&ptr[6], cf->data, ptr[1]);
> Rather than manipulating an opaque u8 array, please declare a
> structure with explicit names.
I had try to declare a struct like below and refactoring code :
struct f81604_bulk_data {
u8 cmd;
u8 dlc;
union {
struct {
u8 id1, id2;
u8 data[CAN_MAX_DLEN];
} sff;
struct {
u8 id1, id2, id3, id4;
u8 data[CAN_MAX_DLEN];
} eff;
};
} __attribute__((packed));
This struct can used in TX/RX bulk in/out. Is it ok?
> +static int f81604_prepare_urbs(struct net_device *netdev)
> +{
> + static const u8 bulk_in_addr[F81604_MAX_DEV] = { 0x82, 0x84 };
> + static const u8 bulk_out_addr[F81604_MAX_DEV] = { 0x01, 0x03 };
> + static const u8 int_in_addr[F81604_MAX_DEV] = { 0x81, 0x83 };
> + struct f81604_port_priv *priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
> + int id = netdev->dev_id;
> + int i;
> +
> + /* initialize to NULL for error recovery */
> + for (i = 0; i < F81604_MAX_RX_URBS; ++i)
> + priv->read_urb[i] = NULL;
> priv was allocated with devm_kzalloc() so it should already be zeroed,
> right? What is the purpose of this loop?
This operation due to following condition:
f81604_open() -> f81604_close() -> f81604_open() failed.
We had used devm_kzalloc() in f81604_probe(), so first f81604_open() all
pointers are NULL. But after f81604_close() then f81604_open() second
times, the URB pointers are not NULLed, it'll makes error on 2nd
f81604_open()
with fail.
>> +/* Called by the usb core when driver is unloaded or device is removed */
>> +static void f81604_disconnect(struct usb_interface *intf)
>> +{
>> + struct f81604_priv *priv = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < F81604_MAX_DEV; ++i) {
>> + if (!priv->netdev[i])
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + unregister_netdev(priv->netdev[i]);
>> + free_candev(priv->netdev[i]);
>> + }
> i> +}
Is typo here?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists