[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7abb9a41-a66f-a20a-1cd9-bfc18a2161da@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 14:26:58 +0530
From: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@...cinc.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
<andersson@...nel.org>, <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] soc: qcom: llcc: Refactor llcc driver to support
multiple configuration
On 8/10/2023 5:52 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 10/08/2023 07:11, Komal Bajaj wrote:
>> + if (!cfgs || cfgs->num_config != DEF_NUM_CFG) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + cfg = &cfgs->llcc_config[DEF_NUM_CFG - 1];
>
> This is a bit of a redundant check.
>
> You add in the check for num_config != 1, then deref llc_config[0] but
> in patch #4 you get an index and check that index against num_config
Hi Bryan, Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Correct, in patch#4, index is checked against num_config, but the
condition also checks for equality case.
For ex. in patch#6, num_config is 4, so index can vary from 0-3.
>
> I'm not seeing how at this point in your series, how num_config could
> be anything other than 1.
>
> I'd do away with the DEF_NUM_CFG define in this code/series completely.
>
> num_config should encode all the necessary detail we need, DEF_NUM_CFG
> just adds noise.
Got your point, will remove the macro DEF_NUM_CFG from the series.
Thanks
Komal
>
> ---
> bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists