Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:15:01 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <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, mfuzzey@parkeon.com,
        jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, nbroeking@me.com,
        jewalt@lgsinnovations.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: cleanup - group and document up private
 firmware parameters
Message-ID: <20170918151501.GA18534@kroah.com>
References: <20170914225422.31034-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170914225422.31034-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1925
Lines: 60

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 03:54:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +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,
> +};

checkpatch.pl didn't complain about a lack of using BIT()?


> +
> +/**
> + * 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;

Agreed that this should not be "priv_reqs" but some other better name.

> +	void *alloc_buf;
> +	size_t alloc_buf_size;
> +};
> +
> +#define fw_req_param_sync(priv_params)					\
> +	(priv_params->mode == FW_API_SYNC)
> +#define fw_req_param_async(priv_params)					\
> +	(priv_params->mode == FW_API_ASYNC)
> +
> +#define fw_param_use_fallback(params)					\
> +	(!!((params)->priv_reqs & FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK))
> +#define fw_param_uevent(params)						\
> +	(!!((params)->priv_reqs & FW_PRIV_REQ_FALLBACK_UEVENT))
> +#define fw_param_nocache(params)					\
> +	(!!((params)->priv_reqs & FW_PRIV_REQ_NO_CACHE))
> +#define fw_param_optional(params)					\
> +	(!!((params)->priv_reqs & FW_PRIV_REQ_OPTIONAL))

static inline functions to get proper typechecking?

>  static bool fw_get_builtin_firmware(struct firmware *fw, const char *name,
> -				    void *buf, size_t size)
> +				    struct fw_priv_params *fw_priv_params)

Shouldn't the priv pointer hang off of 'struct firmware' in an opaque
type that can not be seen/accessed outside of this file?

That way you don't have to change the functions by adding new
parameters, what you did seems a lot more complex.

thanks,

greg k-h