Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2020 14:53:43 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] platform/x86: intel_pmc_core: fix: Make pmc_core_lpm_display() generic for platforms that support sub-states |
| |
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 12:44:26PM -0800, Gayatri Kammela wrote: > Currently pmc_core_lpm_display() uses array of struct pointers i.e., > tgl_lpm_maps for Tiger Lake directly to iterate through and to get the > number of status/live status registers which is hardcoded and cannot > be re-used for future platforms that support sub-states. To maintain > readability, make pmc_core_lpm_display() generic, so that it can re-used > for future platforms.
My comments below.
...
> +static int pmc_core_lpm_get_arr_size(const struct pmc_bit_map **maps) > +{ > + int idx, arr_size = 0;
And why do you need arr_size variable at all?
> + > + for (idx = 0; maps[idx]; idx++) > + arr_size++; > + > + return arr_size; > +}
...
> - int index, idx, len = 32, bit_mask; > + int index, idx, bit_mask, len = 32;
What's the point of shuffling this?
> + int arr_size = pmc_core_lpm_get_arr_size(maps);
This would be better in a split manner, i.e.
int arr_size;
...
arr_size = ...;
...
> + lpm_regs = kmalloc_array(arr_size, sizeof(*lpm_regs), GFP_KERNEL); > + if(!lpm_regs)
> + goto err;
There is no point to have the label. Simple return will work.
> - for (index = 0; tgl_lpm_maps[index]; index++) { > + for (index = 0; maps[index]; index++) {
Why not to reuse arr_size here?
> lpm_regs[index] = pmc_core_reg_read(pmcdev, offset); > offset += 4; > }
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |