Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:36:09 -0500
From:   Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agross@kernel.org,
        andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        vkoul@kernel.org, bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org, peppe.cavallaro@st.com,
        alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com, joabreu@synopsys.com,
        mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, richardcochran@gmail.com,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, veekhee@apple.com,
        tee.min.tan@linux.intel.com, mohammad.athari.ismail@intel.com,
        jonathanh@nvidia.com, ruppala@nvidia.com, bmasney@redhat.com,
        andrey.konovalov@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ncai@quicinc.com,
        jsuraj@qti.qualcomm.com, hisunil@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 08/11] net: stmmac: Add EMAC3 variant of dwmac4
Message-ID: <20230316183609.a3ymuku2cmhpyrpc@halaney-x13s>
References: <20230313165620.128463-1-ahalaney@redhat.com>
 <20230313165620.128463-9-ahalaney@redhat.com>
 <20230313173904.3d611e83@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230313173904.3d611e83@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 05:39:04PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:56:17 -0500 Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > EMAC3 is a Qualcomm variant of dwmac4 that functions the same, but has a
> > different address space layout for MTL and DMA registers. This makes the
> > patch a bit more complicated than we would like so let's explain why the
> > current approach was used.
> 
> Please drop all the static inlines in C sources, you're wrapping 
> a single function call, the compiler will do the right thing.
> 
> Please no more than 6 function arguments.
> 

Thanks for the feedback! With respect to <= 6 function arguments, if I
counted right the only violation is this:

static void do_config_cbs(struct mac_device_info *hw, u32 send_slope,
			  u32 idle_slope, u32 high_credit, u32 low_credit,
			  u32 queue, u32 etsx_ctrl_base_addr,
			  u32 send_slp_credx_base_addr,
			  u32 high_credx_base_addr, u32 low_credx_base_addr,
			  void (*set_mtl_tx_queue_weight)(struct mac_device_info *hw,
							  u32 weight, u32 queue))
(...)
static void emac3_config_cbs(struct mac_device_info *hw, u32 send_slope,
				    u32 idle_slope, u32 high_credit,
				    u32 low_credit, u32 queue)

I agree, that's quite gnarly to read. the emac3_config_cbs is the
callback, so it's already at 6 arguments, so there's nothing I can
trim there. I could create some struct for readability, populate that,
then call the do_config_cbs() func with it from emac3_config_cbs.
Is that the sort of thing you want to see?

Thanks,
Andrew