Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: cleanup - group and document up private
 firmware parameters
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
References: <20170914225422.31034-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc: wagi@monom.org, yi1.li@linux.intel.com, takahiro.akashi@linaro.org,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, luto@kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com,
        dwmw2@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, atull@kernel.org,
        moritz.fischer@ettus.com, pmladek@suse.com, johannes.berg@intel.com,
        emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com, luciano.coelho@intel.com,
        kvalo@codeaurora.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, dhowells@redhat.com, pjones@redhat.com,
        hdegoede@redhat.com, alan@linux.intel.com, tytso@mit.edu,
        dave@stgolabs.net, mawilcox@microsoft.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, nbroeking@me.com,
        jewalt@lgsinnovations.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Martin Fuzzey <mfuzzey@parkeon.com>
Message-ID: <59BB8FB6.2040502@parkeon.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:30:46 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170914225422.31034-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3160
Lines: 79

Hi Luis,

On 15/09/17 00:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> The firmware API has a slew of private options available, which can
> sometimes be hard to understand. When new functionality is introduced
> we also tend to have modify a slew of internal helpers.
>
> Just stuff all common private requirements into its own data structure
> and move features into properly defined flags which can then be carefully
> documented. This:
>
>    o reduces the amount of changes we have make as we advance functionality
>    o helps remove the #ifdef mess we had created for private features
>
> The above benefits makes the code much easier to understand and maintain.

Yes I agree it is much cleaner that way.

A couple of nitpicks below.

> +/**
> + * enum fw_priv_reqs - private features only used internally
> + *
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK: specifies that the firmware request
> + *	will use a fallback mechanism if the kernel's direct filesystem
> + *	lookup failed to find the requested firmware. If the flag
> + *	%FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK is set but the flag
> + *	%FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT is not set, it means the caller
> + *	is relying on a custom fallback mechanism for firmwarwe lookup as a
> + *	fallback mechanism. The custom fallback mechanism is expected to find
> + *	any found firmware using the exposed sysfs interface of the
> + *	firmware_class.  Since the custom fallback mechanism is not compatible
> + *	with the internal caching mechanism for firmware lookups at resume,
> + *	caching will be disabled when the custom fallback mechanism is used.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT: indicates that the fallback mechanism
> + *	this firmware request will rely on will be that of having the kernel
> + *	issue a uevent to userspace. Userspace in turn is expected to be
> + *	monitoring for uevents for the firmware_class and will use the
> + *	exposted sysfs interface to upload the firmware for the caller.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_NO_CACHE: indicates that the firmware request
> + *	should not set up and use the internal caching mechanism to assist
> + *	drivers from fetching firmware at resume time after suspend.
> + * @FW_PRIV_REQ_OPTIONAL: if set it is not a hard requirement by the
> + *	caller that the file requested be present. An error will not be recorded
> + *	if the file is not found.
> + */
> +enum fw_priv_reqs {
> +	FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK			= 1 << 0,
> +	FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT		= 1 << 1,
> +	FW_PRIV_REQ_NO_CACHE			= 1 << 2,
> +	FW_PRIV_REQ_OPTIONAL			= 1 << 3,
> +};
> +

Why REQ ?
Looks more like a set of flags to me.
Wouldn't FW_PRIV_FLAG_XXX be better?

> +/**
> + * struct fw_priv_params - private firmware parameters
> + * @mode: mode of operation
> + * @priv_reqs: private set of &enum fw_priv_reqs, private requirements for
> + *	the firmware request
> + * @alloc_buf: buffer area allocated by the caller so we can place the
> + *	respective firmware
> + * @alloc_buf_size: size of the @alloc_buf
> + */
> +struct fw_priv_params {
> +	enum fw_api_mode mode;
> +	u64 priv_reqs;

Not sure the priv_ prefix in the priv_reqs is necessary since the whole 
structure is private.
I'd have named it just flags.


Regards,

Martin