On Thu 23 Jul 06:22 PDT 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
> > On Tue 07 Jul 05:37 PDT 2015, Lee Jones wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
> > [..]
> >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/Kconfig b/drivers/mfd/Kconfig
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > +config MFD_QCOM_SMD_RPM
> > > > + tristate "Qualcomm Resource Power Manager (RPM) over SMD"
> > > > + depends on QCOM_SMD && OF
> > > > + help
> > > > + If you say yes to this option, support will be included for
> > > > the
> > > > + Resource Power Manager system found in the Qualcomm 8974 based
> > > > + devices.
> > > > +
> > > > + This is required to access many regulators, clocks and bus
> > > > + frequencies controlled by the RPM on these devices.
> > > > +
> > > > + Say M here if you want to include support for the Qualcomm
> > > > RPM as a
> > > > + module. This will build a module called "qcom-smd-rpm".
> > >
> > > I'm not exactly sure what makes this an MFD device.
> > >
> >
> > It represents a piece of hardware (a micro-controller) that exposes
> > control of a multitude of regulators and clocks in the Qualcomm
> > platforms.
> >
> > It's basically just a successor of the qcom_rpm driver - same
> > functionality but a new communication method is used.
>
> My point still stands. Please investigate moving this (and the
> qcom_rpm driver if it's the same) into either drivers/soc or
> drivers/platform. The support in these two directories _seem_ to be
> pretty similar.
>
We had this exact discussion last year and I argued that a piece of
hardware that exposes regulators and clocks - like most PMICs - is a
mfd and you agreed and picked the driver.
I will have a word with Andy about moving this and the qcom_rpm driver
out of mfd.
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom-smd-rpm.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom-smd-rpm.c
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +#define RPM_ERR_INVALID_RESOURCE "resource does not exist"
> > >
> > > I don't like this at all.
> > >
> >
> > Which part of it?
> >
> > It should probably be a static const char *, inlined in the function
> > below. Would that be to your liking?
>
> It would be better, but I never really see the point in initialising
> variables with these types of messages. I'd get rid of the
> superfluous chuff and just do:
>
> memcmp(msg->message, "resource does not exist", 23);
>
The point was simply to not have to write:
if (msg->length == 23 && memcmp(msg->message, ..., 23);
Simply because I don't like the first part of the expression. I'll
rewrite it...
> > > > +static int qcom_smd_rpm_callback(struct qcom_smd_device *qsdev,
> > > > + const void *data,
> > > > + size_t count)
> > > > +{
> > > > + const struct qcom_rpm_header *hdr = data;
> > > > + const struct qcom_rpm_message *msg;
> > > > + const size_t inv_res_len = sizeof(RPM_ERR_INVALID_RESOURCE) - 1;
> > > > + struct qcom_smd_rpm *rpm = dev_get_drvdata(&qsdev->dev);
> > > > + const u8 *buf = data + sizeof(struct qcom_rpm_header);
> > > > + const u8 *end = buf + hdr->length;
> > > > + int status = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (hdr->service_type != RPM_SERVICE_TYPE_REQUEST ||
> > > > + hdr->length < sizeof(struct qcom_rpm_message)) {
> > > > + dev_err(&qsdev->dev, "invalid request\n");
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + while (buf < end) {
> > > > + msg = (struct qcom_rpm_message *)buf;
> > > > + switch (msg->msg_type) {
> > > > + case RPM_MSG_TYPE_MSG_ID:
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case RPM_MSG_TYPE_ERR:
> > > > + if (msg->length == inv_res_len &&
> > > > + !memcmp(msg->message,
> > > > + RPM_ERR_INVALID_RESOURCE,
> > > > + inv_res_len))
> > >
> > > strncpy(msg->message, "resource does not exist", 23);
> > >
> >
> > No, I want to compare the content of msg->message with the string
>
> Yes, I just noticed that.
>
> > "resource does not exist" - as that's the only way to know what type of
> > error we got.
> >
> > This is unfortunately how the protocol looks :/
>
> What about either my memcmp suggestion above or this then:
>
> strncmp(msg->message, "resource does not exist", 23);
>
That would require the string to be 0-terminated.
[..]
> > > > +static struct qcom_smd_driver qcom_smd_rpm_driver = {
> > > > + .probe = qcom_smd_rpm_probe,
> > > > + .remove = qcom_smd_rpm_remove,
> > > > + .callback = qcom_smd_rpm_callback,
> > > > + .driver = {
> > > > + .name = "qcom_smd_rpm",
> > > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > >
> > > Remove this line.
>
> Still not 100% sure why you need your own 'special' driver struct. If
> it's for the .callback, there are other ways to do this without having
> to invent your own bus.
>
Because the life cycle of these components are much like, say, USB -
they can come and go. As such e.g. a platform_driver is not a good fit.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
