Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:54:51 +0200 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mtd: m25p80: consider max message size when use the spi_mem_xx() API |
| |
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 13:01:13 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:
> From: Chuanhua Han > > Sent: 20 August 2018 13:44 > >
Still no message here, and the subject prefix is still wrong.
Fixes and Cc-stable tags should be placed here...
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanhua Han <chuanhua.han@nxp.com> > > --- > > Changes in v3: > > Rename variable name "val" to "opcode_addr_dummy_sum". > > Place the legitimacy of the transfer size(i.e., "pi_max_message_size(mem->spi)" and > > "opcode_addr_dummy_sum") into "if (! ctlr - > mem_ops | |! ctlr-> mem_ops->exec_op) {" > > structure and add "spi_max_transfer_size(mem->spi) and opcode_addr_dummy_sum". > > Adjust the formatting alignment of your code. > > "(unsigned long)op->data.nbytes" was modified to "(unsigned long)(op->data.nbytes)". > > > > Fixes: c36ff266dc82 ("spi: Extend the core to ease integration of SPI memory controllers")
... not here.
The changelog should also contain a "Changes in v2" section.
> > --- > > drivers/spi/spi-mem.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > index 990770d..5ec2bc9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > @@ -328,10 +328,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_exec_op); > > int spi_mem_adjust_op_size(struct spi_mem *mem, struct spi_mem_op *op) > > { > > struct spi_controller *ctlr = mem->spi->controller; > > + unsigned long opcode_addr_dummy_sum = sizeof(op->cmd.opcode) + > > + op->addr.nbytes + > > + op->dummy.nbytes; >
Yep, the var name is definitely too long.
> I'd split that (and shorten the variable name) to avoid line wrap. Maybe: > > unsigned long len; > > len = sizeof(op->cmd.opcode) + op->addr.nbytes + op->dummy.nbytes; > > > > if (ctlr->mem_ops && ctlr->mem_ops->adjust_op_size) > > return ctlr->mem_ops->adjust_op_size(mem, op); > > > > + if (!ctlr->mem_ops || !ctlr->mem_ops->exec_op) { > > + if (spi_max_message_size(mem->spi) < opcode_addr_dummy_sum || > > + spi_max_transfer_size(mem->spi) < opcode_addr_dummy_sum) > > + return -EINVAL; > > Those comparisons are lexically backwards, you want 'value op constant'. > So: > if (len > spi_max_message_size(mem->spi) || > len > spi_max_transfer_size(mem->spi)) > return -EINVAL. > Although I'm surprised you need to do both comparisons.
Indeed, spi_max_transfer_size() is enough since it already does a min() with spi_max_message_size().
> > > + > > + op->data.nbytes = min3((unsigned long)(op->data.nbytes),
Hm, you should have a cast of size_t, I guess that's what kbuild robots reported.
> > + spi_max_transfer_size(mem->spi), > > + spi_max_message_size(mem->spi) - > > + opcode_addr_dummy_sum); > > That looks like a strange limit...
We need that to adjust the len of the 2nd transfer (called data in spi-mem) if it's too long to fit in a SPI message or SPI transfer.
> > > + } > > + > > return 0; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(spi_mem_adjust_op_size); > > -- > > 2.7.4 > > David > > - > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) >
| |