Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90778-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 16:09:38 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
To: =?utf-8?B?VGjDqW8=?= Lebrun <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, 
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, 
	Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>, Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com>, 
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com>, 
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] i2c: nomadik: support short xfer timeouts
 using waitqueue & hrtimer
Message-ID: <stofbh7be43it734k5icmjpo7oya2x4maevl2xirnf7spfkrzv@h27rc5riemao>
References: <20240229-mbly-i2c-v2-0-b32ed18c098c@bootlin.com>
 <20240229-mbly-i2c-v2-6-b32ed18c098c@bootlin.com>
 <uq6n6s4ksuxvkonowouhr747cnu4ccwvhgpl6r7txgdtnimqnz@sl33zjshzemk>
 <CZL1F576XCJB.2DBGD5Z7UUXIH@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CZL1F576XCJB.2DBGD5Z7UUXIH@bootlin.com>

Hi Theo,

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 03:32:38PM +0100, Th?o Lebrun wrote:
> On Mon Mar 4, 2024 at 2:54 PM CET, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > +static bool nmk_i2c_wait_xfer_done(struct nmk_i2c_dev *priv)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (priv->timeout_usecs < jiffies_to_usecs(1)) {
> > > +		unsigned long timeout_usecs = priv->timeout_usecs;
> > > +		ktime_t timeout = ktime_set(0, timeout_usecs * NSEC_PER_USEC);
> > > +
> > > +		wait_event_hrtimeout(priv->xfer_wq, priv->xfer_done, timeout);
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		unsigned long timeout = usecs_to_jiffies(priv->timeout_usecs);
> > > +
> > > +		wait_event_timeout(priv->xfer_wq, priv->xfer_done, timeout);
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	return priv->xfer_done;
> >
> > You could eventually write this as
> >
> >   static bool nmk_i2c_wait_xfer_done(struct nmk_i2c_dev *priv)
> >   {
> > 	if (priv->timeout_usecs < jiffies_to_usecs(1)) {
> > 		...
> >
> > 		return !wait_event_hrtimeout(...);
> > 	}
> >
> > 	...
> > 	return wait_event_timeout(...);
> >   }
> >
> > It looks a bit cleaner to me... your choice.
> 
> The full block would become:
> 
> static bool nmk_i2c_wait_xfer_done(struct nmk_i2c_dev *priv)
> {
> 	if (priv->timeout_usecs < jiffies_to_usecs(1)) {
> 		unsigned long timeout_usecs = priv->timeout_usecs;
> 		ktime_t timeout = ktime_set(0, timeout_usecs * NSEC_PER_USEC);
> 
> 		return !wait_event_hrtimeout(priv->xfer_wq, priv->xfer_done,
> 					     timeout);
> 	}
> 
> 	return wait_event_timeout(priv->xfer_wq, priv->xfer_done,
> 				  usecs_to_jiffies(priv->timeout_usecs));
> }
> 
> Three things:
> 
>  - Deindenting the jiffy timeout case means no variable declaration
>    after the if-block. This is fine from my point-of-view.
> 
>  - It means we depend on the half-mess that are return values from
>    wait_event_*timeout() macros. I wanted to avoid that because it
>    looks like an error when you read the above code and see one is
>    negated while the other is not.
> 
>  - Also, I'm not confident in casting either return value to bool; what
>    happens if either macro returns an error? This is a theoretical case
>    that shouldn't happen, but behavior might change at some point or
>    bugs could occur. We know priv->xfer_done will give us the right
>    answer.
> 
> My preference still goes to the original version, but I'm happy we are
> having a discussion about this code block.

sure... it's not a binding comment.

Andi