Hi,
I noticed the below when I was reviewing the code for merge into
arm-soc. Would you mind following up with an incremental patch? I
don't think we need to ask Michal to respin for this:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Jolly Shah <jolly.s...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> From: Rajan Vaja <raj...@xilinx.com>
>
> Add debugfs file to query platform specific data from firmware
> using debugfs interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajan Vaja <raj...@xilinx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jolly Shah <jol...@xilinx.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp-debug.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp-debug.c
> b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp-debug.c
> index fc11db9..4532bd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp-debug.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/xilinx/zynqmp-debug.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ static char debugfs_buf[PAGE_SIZE];
> static struct pm_api_info pm_api_list[] = {
> PM_API(PM_GET_API_VERSION),
> PM_API(PM_IOCTL),
> + PM_API(PM_QUERY_DATA),
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -105,6 +106,32 @@ static int process_api_request(u32 pm_id, u64
> *pm_api_arg, u32 *pm_api_ret)
> sprintf(debugfs_buf, "IOCTL return value: %u\n",
> pm_api_ret[1]);
> break;
> + case PM_QUERY_DATA:
> + {
> + struct zynqmp_pm_query_data qdata = {0};
> +
> + qdata.qid = pm_api_arg[0];
> + qdata.arg1 = pm_api_arg[1];
> + qdata.arg2 = pm_api_arg[2];
> + qdata.arg3 = pm_api_arg[3];
This is usually a pattern we try to avoid (having full code blocks in
a switch statement, and local variables).
Please move the declaration of qdata to the top of the function so you
can drop the braces.
> +
> + ret = eemi_ops->query_data(qdata, pm_api_ret);
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> +
> + if (qdata.qid == PM_QID_CLOCK_GET_NAME)
> + sprintf(debugfs_buf, "Clock name = %s\n",
> + (char *)pm_api_ret);
> + else if (qdata.qid == PM_QID_CLOCK_GET_FIXEDFACTOR_PARAMS)
> + sprintf(debugfs_buf, "Multiplier = %d, Divider =
> %d\n",
> + pm_api_ret[1], pm_api_ret[2]);
> + else
> + sprintf(debugfs_buf,
> + "data[0] = 0x%08x\ndata[1] = 0x%08x\n data[2]
> = 0x%08x\ndata[3] = 0x%08x\n",
> + pm_api_ret[0], pm_api_ret[1],
> + pm_api_ret[2], pm_api_ret[3]);
If you anticipate more qids here later, a switch could be nicer than a
sequence of if/else.
-Olof
