lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/4] mhi_bus: core: Add support for MHI host interface
    From
    Date
    Thanks for quick feedback


    On 04/27/2018 12:22 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:23:28PM -0700, Sujeev Dias wrote:
    >> MHI Host Interface is a communication protocol to be used by the host
    >> to control and communcate with modem over a high speed peripheral bus.
    >> This module will allow host to communicate with external devices that
    >> support MHI protocol.
    >>
    >> Signed-off-by: Sujeev Dias <sdias@codeaurora.org>
    > No one else has ever reviewed this code before? That's not good, please
    > at the very least, have someone else at your company go over it first.
    > I don't want to be the ones having to point out all of the "obvious"
    > issues :)
    >
    This code has gone thru rigorous code review and testing, before I
    submit next patch
    I will have multiple people sign off on it.
    >> ---
    >> Documentation/00-INDEX | 2 +
    >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/bus/mhi.txt | 141 +++
    >> Documentation/mhi.txt | 235 ++++
    >> drivers/bus/Kconfig | 17 +
    >> drivers/bus/Makefile | 1 +
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/Makefile | 8 +
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/Makefile | 1 +
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_boot.c | 593 ++++++++++
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_dtr.c | 177 +++
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_init.c | 1290 +++++++++++++++++++++
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_internal.h | 732 ++++++++++++
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_main.c | 1476 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    >> drivers/bus/mhi/core/mhi_pm.c | 1177 ++++++++++++++++++++
    >> include/linux/mhi.h | 694 ++++++++++++
    >> include/linux/mod_devicetable.h | 11 +
    >> 15 files changed, 6555 insertions(+)
    > And a 6555 line patch is a bit hard to consume all at once. Can't this
    > be split up into much more reviewable chunks? Look at how some of the
    > other new bus subsystems got added to the tree recently. They were
    > submitted in longer patch series, but smaller sized patches
    > individually. That makes things much easier to review.
    >
    > For example, there is no reason your debugfs stuff needs to be in this
    > initial patch. That should be in a separate one, right? Same for
    > firmware download. Please take the time to break this up into logical
    > steps.
    >
    > Like my son's math teacher keeps telling him, "show your work, not just
    > an answer at the bottom of the page".
    >
    > Also, it is required by the DT maintainers to split that file alone up
    > into a separate patch to be even considered for merging.
    >
    > One thing I can tell you right now that isn't acceptable:
    That is interesting because internally it's separated, and I squash them
    thinking
    it was preferred. I will separate them out to functional blocks
    >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MHI_DEBUG
    > Don't have a separate config option for debugging. No one will enable
    > it, which makes it pointless. Everything has to be dynamic these days.
    Intention was to completely compile out MHI_VERB messages because we
    have those messages in
    data path. For release build, we wanted to reduce as much mips as
    possible. However, for
    debugging these messages are extremely helpful.

    I will look into tracepoints...
    >> +
    >> +#define MHI_VERB(fmt, ...) do { \
    >> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_VERBOSE) \
    >> + pr_debug("[D][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__);\
    >> +} while (0)
    >> +
    >> +#else
    >> +
    >> +#define MHI_VERB(fmt, ...)
    >> +
    >> +#endif
    >> +
    >> +#define MHI_LOG(fmt, ...) do { \
    >> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_INFO) \
    >> + pr_info("[I][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__);\
    >> +} while (0)
    >> +
    >> +#define MHI_ERR(fmt, ...) do { \
    >> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_ERROR) \
    >> + pr_err("[E][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
    >> +} while (0)
    >> +
    >> +#define MHI_CRITICAL(fmt, ...) do { \
    >> + if (mhi_cntrl->klog_lvl <= MHI_MSG_LVL_CRITICAL) \
    >> + pr_alert("[C][%s] " fmt, __func__, ##__VA_ARGS__); \
    >> +} while (0)
    >> +
    > And do not roll your own debugging/logging macros. Use what is given to
    > you (dev_info(), dev_err(), dev_dbg()), they are there for a reason. By
    > going around them, you circumvent the whole of the kernel logging
    > infrastructure and declare that your tiny bus is somehow more "special"
    > than it.
    >
    > And I doubt you want to make such a statement :)

    well :).. I will remove them in next revision.
    > thanks,
    >
    > greg k-h
    > --
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

    Thanks
    Sujeev
    --

    Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
    a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-04-28 16:29    [W:4.613 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site