Message-ID: <992c3573-f87c-447c-b8d7-d3bb29b0c5f0@opensynergy.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 15:00:21 +0100
From: Harald Mommer <harald.mommer@...nsynergy.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, Haixu Cui <quic_haixcui@...cinc.com>,
 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_ztu@...cinc.com,
 Matti Moell <Matti.Moell@...nsynergy.com>,
 Mikhail Golubev <Mikhail.Golubev@...nsynergy.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] virtio-spi: Add virtio SPI driver.

On 29.02.24 09:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-02-24, 15:27, Harald Mommer wrote:
>> +static int virtio_spi_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct device_node *np = vdev->dev.parent->of_node;
>> +	struct virtio_spi_priv *priv;
>> +	struct spi_controller *ctrl;
>> +	int err;
>> +	u32 bus_num;
>> +	u16 csi;
>> +
>> +	ctrl = devm_spi_alloc_host(&vdev->dev, sizeof(*priv));
>> +	if (!ctrl) {
>> +		dev_err(&vdev->dev, "Kernel memory exhausted in %s()\n",
>> +			__func__);
> The print can be dropped I guess.


Looked around: It is habit not to do here dev_err() here so the 
dev_err() is to be removed.

For curiosity I searched through the kernel whether the kernel already 
leaves a trace the way down the memory allocation but somehow I landed 
in the forest. Not important.


>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	priv = spi_controller_get_devdata(ctrl);
>> +	priv->vdev = vdev;
>> +	vdev->priv = priv;
>> +	dev_set_drvdata(&vdev->dev, ctrl);
>> +
>> +	init_completion(&priv->spi_req.completion);
>> +
>> +	err = of_property_read_u32(np, "spi,bus-num", &bus_num);
>> +	if (!err && bus_num <= S16_MAX)
>> +		ctrl->bus_num = (s16)bus_num;
>> +
>> +	virtio_spi_read_config(vdev);
>> +
>> +	/* Method to do a single SPI transfer */
> The comments for obvious statements are normally not required. There
> are a couple of them here.


Removing now a few really obvious comments. This "code speaks for 
itself" sitting in front of a mostly uncommented code desert is not mine 
so I'm careful with this.


>
>> +	ctrl->transfer_one = virtio_spi_transfer_one;
>> +
>> +	/* Initialize virtqueues */
>> +	err = virtio_spi_find_vqs(priv);
>> +	if (err) {
>> +		dev_err(&vdev->dev, "Cannot setup virtqueues\n");
> Maybe "Failed to" instead of "Cannot" ?


I grepped through the kernel for '"Cannot ' which brings all the 
messages in the kernel which start with "Cannot ": 4123 matches (case 
insensitive).

Did the same with `"Failed to ' which brings all the messages in the 
kernel which start with "Failed to ": 34746 matches (case insensitive).

Majority uses "Failed to " but "Cannot " is also used. Both wordings 
seem to be acceptable.

So this is no finding and I keep the code as it is. Otherwise we must 
look again not only here but also in all other messages especially in 
virtio_spi_set_delays() reworking more (for no good reason).

My wording in virtio_spi_restore() is more unusual, "problem ". Only 111 
matches.

It's not wrong, it's not broken, nobody complained now, we will see.

>> +		return err;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	err = spi_register_controller(ctrl);
>> +	if (err) {
>> +		dev_err(&vdev->dev, "Cannot register controller\n");
>> +		goto err_return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	board_info.max_speed_hz = priv->max_freq_hz;
>> +	/* spi_new_device() currently does not use bus_num but better set it */
>> +	board_info.bus_num = (u16)ctrl->bus_num;
>> +
>> +	/* Add chip selects to controller */
>> +	for (csi = 0; csi < ctrl->num_chipselect; csi++) {
>> +		dev_dbg(&vdev->dev, "Setting up CS=%u\n", csi);
>> +		board_info.chip_select = csi;
> Maybe a blank line here.
>
>> +		/* TODO: Discuss setting of board_info.mode */
>> +		if (!(priv->mode_func_supported & VIRTIO_SPI_CS_HIGH))
>> +			board_info.mode = SPI_MODE_0;
>> +		else
>> +			board_info.mode = SPI_MODE_0 | SPI_CS_HIGH;
> and here to improve readability.


Yes, code desert without blank lines here.

And while we are here and nobody wanted to discuss: The TODO comment is 
to be removed now. In the meantime I'm convinced the code below is what 
really should be done here.

>> +		if (!spi_new_device(ctrl, &board_info)) {
>> +			dev_err(&vdev->dev, "Cannot setup device %u\n", csi);
>> +			spi_unregister_controller(ctrl);
>> +			err = -ENODEV;
>> +			goto err_return;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +
>> +err_return:
>> +	vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void virtio_spi_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>> +{
>> +	struct spi_controller *ctrl = dev_get_drvdata(&vdev->dev);
>> +
>> +	/* Order: 1.) unregister controller, 2.) remove virtqueue */
> Not sure if this comment is required or not, since we don't add
> similar ones while registering.


I got once from you a review comment about the de-initialization order. 
Now the order is as it should be. This comment is needed to remind me 
(and others) of the desired de-initialization order in case someone has 
the idea to replace spi_register_controller() by 
devm_spi_register_controller() in virtio_spi_probe(). By such a change 
also the spi_unregister_controller() here would be removed and this 
would change the de-initialization back to the undesired order.

Now there is the comment above the line being removed asking "Have you 
thought about this?".

I was already reworking to devm_spi_register_controller() when I 
realized late the undesired side effect and rolled back. Better we keep 
this comment.


>> +	spi_unregister_controller(ctrl);
>> +	virtio_spi_del_vq(vdev);
>> +}
> Other than that.
>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>
No real code changes. Some comments to be removed, some blank lines to 
be added, nothing urgent even in case the driver is integrated now 
locally by someone for some need. No re-test will be needed. Let's see 
what comes in addition. This is for next week, by than also the 
maintenance of the virtio mailing lists will have been done.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists