[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95c91cfd-cbf2-2496-4c0d-c8490591fd19@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:24:26 -0600
From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
To: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>,
Hemant Kumar <hemantk@...eaurora.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Bhaumik Bhatt <bbhatt@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] bus: mhi: Add mhi_queue_is_full function
On 10/23/2020 1:11 PM, Loic Poulain wrote:
> Hi Hemant,
>
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 05:06, Hemant Kumar <hemantk@...eaurora.org
> <mailto:hemantk@...eaurora.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Loic,
>
> On 10/16/20 2:20 AM, Loic Poulain wrote:
> > This function can be used by client driver to determine whether it's
> > possible to queue new elements in a channel ring.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org
> <mailto:loic.poulain@...aro.org>>
> [..]
> > +static inline bool mhi_is_ring_full(struct mhi_controller
> *mhi_cntrl,
> > + struct mhi_ring *ring)
> > {
> > void *tmp = ring->wp + ring->el_size;
> >
> > @@ -1173,6 +1173,17 @@ int mhi_queue_buf(struct mhi_device
> *mhi_dev, enum dma_data_direction dir,
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_buf);
> >
> > +bool mhi_queue_is_full(struct mhi_device *mhi_dev, enum
> dma_data_direction dir)
> > +{
> > + struct mhi_controller *mhi_cntrl = mhi_dev->mhi_cntrl;
> > + struct mhi_chan *mhi_chan = (dir == DMA_TO_DEVICE) ?
> > + mhi_dev->ul_chan :
> mhi_dev->dl_chan;
> > + struct mhi_ring *tre_ring = &mhi_chan->tre_ring;
> > +
> > + return mhi_is_ring_full(mhi_cntrl, tre_ring);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mhi_queue_is_full);
> >
> i was wondering if you can make use of mhi_get_free_desc() API (pushed
> as part of MHI UCI - User Control Interface driver) here?
>
>
> I prefer not to depend on PR that is not yet merged to keep things
> simple, though I could integrate it in my PR... I think this function is
> good to have anyway for client drivers, and slightly faster since this
> is just a pointer comparison.
Its a little bit more than that. Frankly, unless you are counting
assembly instructions for both methods, the difference is likely to be
in the noise.
However, I wonder why core MHI changes were not copied to the proper
list (namely linux-arm-msm)?
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists