On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 14:05:27 -0700 Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21-09-09 11:06:53, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:20 AM Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21-09-08 22:12:15, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > Commit 0b9159d0ff21 ("cxl/pci: Store memory capacity values") missed > > > > updating the kernel-doc for 'struct cxl_mem' leading to the following > > > > warnings: > > > > > > > > ./scripts/kernel-doc -v drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h 2>&1 | grep warn > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'total_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'volatile_only_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'persistent_only_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'partition_align_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'active_volatile_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'active_persistent_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'next_volatile_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h:107: warning: Function parameter or member > > > > 'next_persistent_bytes' not described in 'cxl_mem' > > > > > > > > Also, it is redundant to describe those same parameters in the > > > > kernel-doc for cxl_mem_get_partition_info(). Given the only user of that > > > > routine updates the values in @cxlm, just do that implicitly internal to > > > > the helper. > > > > > > > > Cc: Ira Weiny <[email protected]> > > > > Reported-by: Ben Widawsky <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h | 15 +++++++++++++-- > > > > drivers/cxl/pci.c | 35 +++++++++++------------------------ > > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h > > > > index d5334df83fb2..c6fce966084a 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h > > > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/cxlmem.h > > > > @@ -78,8 +78,19 @@ devm_cxl_add_memdev(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, > > > > * @mbox_mutex: Mutex to synchronize mailbox access. > > > > * @firmware_version: Firmware version for the memory device. > > > > * @enabled_cmds: Hardware commands found enabled in CEL. > > > > - * @pmem_range: Persistent memory capacity information. > > > > - * @ram_range: Volatile memory capacity information. > > > > + * @pmem_range: Active Persistent memory capacity configuration > > > > + * @ram_range: Active Volatile memory capacity configuration > > > > + * @total_bytes: sum of all possible capacities > > > > + * @volatile_only_bytes: hard volatile capacity > > > > + * @persistent_only_bytes: hard persistent capacity > > > > + * @partition_align_bytes: soft setting for configurable capacity > > see below... How about: > "alignment size for partition-able capacity" With that change or something similar. Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> Renaming functions as discussed looks sensible to me as well in the longer term. > > > > > + * @active_volatile_bytes: sum of hard + soft volatile > > > > + * @active_persistent_bytes: sum of hard + soft persistent > > > > > > Looking at this now, probably makes sense to create some helper macros or > > > inline > > > functions to calculate these as needed, rather than storing them in the > > > structure. > > > > Perhaps, I would need to look deeper into what is worth caching vs > > what is suitable to be recalculated. Do you have a proposal here? > > I think it's worth being considered... however, this suggestion was my > mistake. > I thought there was a way to infer the active capacities just from identify, > but > there isn't. This leads me to request an update to the kdoc above which was > how > I got confused. > > > > > > > > > > > > + * @next_volatile_bytes: volatile capacity change pending device reset > > > > + * @next_persistent_bytes: persistent capacity change pending device > > > > reset > > > > + * > > > > + * See section 8.2.9.5.2 Capacity Configuration and Label Storage for > > > > + * details on capacity parameters. > > > > */ > > > > struct cxl_mem { > > > > struct device *dev; > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/pci.c > > > > index c1e1d12e24b6..8077d907e7d3 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cxl/pci.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cxl/pci.c > > > > @@ -1262,11 +1262,7 @@ static struct cxl_mbox_get_supported_logs > > > > *cxl_get_gsl(struct cxl_mem *cxlm) > > > > > > > > /** > > > > * cxl_mem_get_partition_info - Get partition info > > > > - * @cxlm: The device to act on > > > > - * @active_volatile_bytes: returned active volatile capacity > > > > - * @active_persistent_bytes: returned active persistent capacity > > > > - * @next_volatile_bytes: return next volatile capacity > > > > - * @next_persistent_bytes: return next persistent capacity > > > > + * @cxlm: cxl_mem instance to update partition info > > > > * > > > > * Retrieve the current partition info for the device specified. If > > > > not 0, the > > > > * 'next' values are pending and take affect on next cold reset. > > > > @@ -1275,11 +1271,7 @@ static struct cxl_mbox_get_supported_logs > > > > *cxl_get_gsl(struct cxl_mem *cxlm) > > > > * > > > > * See CXL @8.2.9.5.2.1 Get Partition Info > > > > */ > > > > -static int cxl_mem_get_partition_info(struct cxl_mem *cxlm, > > > > - u64 *active_volatile_bytes, > > > > - u64 *active_persistent_bytes, > > > > - u64 *next_volatile_bytes, > > > > - u64 *next_persistent_bytes) > > > > +static int cxl_mem_get_partition_info(struct cxl_mem *cxlm) > > > > { > > > > struct cxl_mbox_get_partition_info { > > > > __le64 active_volatile_cap; > > > > @@ -1294,15 +1286,14 @@ static int cxl_mem_get_partition_info(struct > > > > cxl_mem *cxlm, > > > > if (rc) > > > > return rc; > > > > > > > > - *active_volatile_bytes = le64_to_cpu(pi.active_volatile_cap); > > > > - *active_persistent_bytes = le64_to_cpu(pi.active_persistent_cap); > > > > - *next_volatile_bytes = le64_to_cpu(pi.next_volatile_cap); > > > > - *next_persistent_bytes = le64_to_cpu(pi.next_volatile_cap); > > > > - > > > > - *active_volatile_bytes *= CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > - *active_persistent_bytes *= CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > - *next_volatile_bytes *= CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > - *next_persistent_bytes *= CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > + cxlm->active_volatile_bytes = > > > > + le64_to_cpu(pi.active_volatile_cap) * > > > > CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > + cxlm->active_persistent_bytes = > > > > + le64_to_cpu(pi.active_persistent_cap) * > > > > CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > + cxlm->next_volatile_bytes = > > > > + le64_to_cpu(pi.next_volatile_cap) * > > > > CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > + cxlm->next_persistent_bytes = > > > > + le64_to_cpu(pi.next_volatile_cap) * > > > > CXL_CAPACITY_MULTIPLIER; > > > > > > Personally, I prefer the more functional style implementation. I guess if > > > you > > > wanted to make the change, my preference would be to kill > > > cxl_mem_get_partition_info() entirely. Up to you though... > > > > I was bringing this function in line with the precedent we already set > > with cxl_mem_identify() that caches the result in @cxlm. Are you > > saying you want to change that style too? > > > > I feel like caching device attributes is idiomatic. Look at all the > > PCI attributes that are cached in "struct pci_device" that could be > > re-read or re-calculated rather than cached. In general I think a > > routine that returns 4 values is better off filling in a structure. > > Caching is totally fine, I was just suggesting keeping the side effects out of > the innocuous sounding cxl_mem_get_partition_info(). I think I originally > authored authored cxl_mem_identify(), so mea culpa. I just realized it after > seeing the removal that I liked Ira's functional style. > > Perhaps simply renaming these functions is the right solution (ie. save it > for a > rainy day). Populate is not my favorite verb, but as an example: > static int cxl_mem_populate_partition_info > static int cxl_mem_populate_indentify
