On 26.07.2022 05:23, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> +static uint64_t dbc_work_ring_size(const struct dbc_work_ring *ring)
> +{
> + if ( ring->enq >= ring->deq )
> + return ring->enq - ring->deq;
> +
> + return DBC_WORK_RING_CAP - ring->deq + ring->enq;
> +}
Doesn't unsigned int suffice as a return type here?
> +static int64_t dbc_push_work(struct dbc *dbc, struct dbc_work_ring *ring,
> + const char *buf, unsigned int len)
> +{
> + unsigned int i = 0;
> + unsigned int end, start = ring->enq;
> +
> + while ( !dbc_work_ring_full(ring) && i < len )
> + {
> + ring->buf[ring->enq] = buf[i++];
> + ring->enq = (ring->enq + 1) & (DBC_WORK_RING_CAP - 1);
> + }
> +
> + end = ring->enq;
> +
> + if ( end > start )
> + cache_flush(&ring->buf[start], end - start);
> + else if ( i > 0 )
> + {
> + cache_flush(&ring->buf[start], DBC_WORK_RING_CAP - start);
> + cache_flush(&ring->buf[0], end);
> + }
> +
> + return i;
> +}
The function's return type is int64_t but the sole return statement
hands back an unsigned int - what's the deal here?
> +static struct xhci_trb evt_trb[DBC_TRB_RING_CAP];
> +static struct xhci_trb out_trb[DBC_TRB_RING_CAP];
> +static struct xhci_trb in_trb[DBC_TRB_RING_CAP];
> +static struct xhci_erst_segment erst __aligned(64);
> +static struct xhci_dbc_ctx ctx __aligned(64);
> +static uint8_t out_wrk_buf[DBC_WORK_RING_CAP] __aligned(DBC_PAGE_SIZE);
I've been trying to identify the reason for the alignment here,
compared to the other buffers which are no longer page-aligned. I
haven't even been able to locate the place where the address of
this buffer is actually written to hardware; all I could find was
the respective virt_to_maddr(). Could you please point me at that?
Jan
