Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        evgreen@chromium.org, cpratapa@codeaurora.org, elder@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210319042923.1584593-1-elder@linaro.org>
 <20210319042923.1584593-5-elder@linaro.org> <YFTuP7NbUFPoPoCb@lunn.ch>
From:   Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <7068152e-5e1b-94b2-bcb2-c66e622bd127@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:18:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YFTuP7NbUFPoPoCb@lunn.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 3/19/21 1:32 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static inline u32 ipa_reg_bcr_val(enum ipa_version version)
>>   			BCR_HOLB_DROP_L2_IRQ_FMASK |
>>   			BCR_DUAL_TX_FMASK;
>>   
>> -	/* assert(version != IPA_VERSION_4_5); */
>> +	ipa_assert(NULL, version != IPA_VERSION_4_5);
> 
> Hi Alex
> 
> It is impossible to see just looking what the NULL means. And given
> its the first parameter, it should be quite important. I find this API
> pretty bad.

I actually don't like the first argument.  I would have
supplied the main IPA pointer, but that isn't always
visible or available (the GSI code doesn't have the
IPA pointer definition).  So I thought instead I could
at least supply the underlying device if available,
and use dev_err().

But I wouldn't mind just getting rid of the first
argument and having a failed assertion always call
pr_err() and not dev_err().

The thing of most value to me the asserted condition.

Thoughts?

					-Alex