Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:33:26 -0500
From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>
To: Olivier Sobrie <olivier@sobrie.be>
Cc: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>,
        Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Linux-CAN <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: kvaser_usb: Add support for the Usbcan-II family
Message-ID: <20141230153326.GA3798@linux>
References: <20141223154654.GB6460@vivalin-002>
 <20141223155311.GA5997@vivalin-002>
 <CAEM=fMqNnq9QYLiR8WXJ0wN2V=1B1TouxaLB_JLrYOtKvwxBkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141224150417.GB5707@vivalin-002>
 <20141228215134.GA2548@thinkoso.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141228215134.GA2548@thinkoso.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:51:34PM +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
[...]
> > > >  
> > > > +	if (LEAF_PRODUCT_ID(id->idProduct)) {
> > > > +		dev->family = KVASER_LEAF;
> > > > +		dev->max_channels = LEAF_MAX_NET_DEVICES;
> > > > +	} else if (USBCAN_PRODUCT_ID(id->idProduct)) {
> > > > +		dev->family = KVASER_USBCAN;
> > > > +		dev->max_channels = USBCAN_MAX_NET_DEVICES;
> > > > +	} else {
> > > > +		dev_err(&intf->dev, "Product ID (%d) does not belong to any "
> > > > +				    "known Kvaser USB family", id->idProduct);
> > > > +		return -ENODEV;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Is it really required to keep max_channels in the kvaser_usb structure?
> > > If I looked correctly, you use this variable as a replacement for
> > > MAX_NET_DEVICES in the code and MAX_NET_DEVICES is only used in probe
> > > and disconnect functions. I think it can even be replaced by nchannels
> > > in the disconnect path. So I also think that it don't need to be in the
> > > kvaser_usb structure.
> > > 
> > 
> > hmmm.. given the current state of error arbitration explained
> > above, where I cannot accept a dev->nchannels > 2, I guess we
> > have two options:
> > 
> > a) Remove max_channels, and hardcode the channels count
> > correctness logic as follows:
> > 
> >         dev->nchannels = msg.u.cardinfo.nchannels;
> >         if ((dev->family == USBCAN && dev->nchannels > USBCAN_MAX_NET_DEVICES)
> >             || (dev->family == LEAF && dev->nchannels > LEAF_MAX_NET_DEVICES))
> >                 return -EINVAL
> > 
> > b) Leave max_channels in 'struct kvaser_usb' as is.
> > 
> > I personally prefer the solution at 'b)' but I can do it as
> > in 'a)' if you prefer :-)
> 
> Keeping max_channels in the kvaser_usb structure is useless because it
> is only used in one function that is called in the probe function.
> 
> I would prefer to have:
> 	if (dev->nchannels > MAX_NET_DEVICES)
> 		return -EINVAL
> 
> 	if ((dev->family == USBCAN) &&
> 	    (dev->nchannels > MAX_USBCAN_NET_DEVICES))
> 		return -EINVAL
> 
> You can remove LEAF_MAX_NET_DEVICES which is not used, keep
> MAX_NET_DEVICES equals to 3 and remove the MAX() macro.
> The test specific to the USBCAN family can eventually be moved in the
> kvaser_usb_probe() function.
> 

Quite nice, will do it that way in v3.

Regards,
Darwish
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/