Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 05/15] ims-msi: Add mask/unmask routines | From | "Dey, Megha" <> | Date | Sun, 3 May 2020 17:16:18 -0700 |
| |
Hi Thomas,
On 4/25/2020 2:49 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> writes: >> >> +static u32 __dev_ims_desc_mask_irq(struct msi_desc *desc, u32 flag) > > ...mask_irq()? This is doing both mask and unmask depending on the > availability of the ops callbacks.
yes, should have called it __dev_ims_desc_mask_unmask_irq perhaps. > >> +{ >> + u32 mask_bits = desc->platform.masked; >> + const struct platform_msi_ops *ops; >> + >> + ops = desc->platform.msi_priv_data->ops; >> + if (!ops) >> + return 0; >> + >> + if (flag) { > > flag? Darn, this has a clear boolean meaning of mask or unmask and 'u32 > flag' is the most natural and obvious self explaining expression for > this, right?
will change it a more meaningful name next time around .. > >> + if (ops->irq_mask) >> + mask_bits = ops->irq_mask(desc); >> + } else { >> + if (ops->irq_unmask) >> + mask_bits = ops->irq_unmask(desc); >> + } >> + >> + return mask_bits; > > What's mask_bits? This is about _ONE_ IMS interrupt. Can it have > multiple mask bits and if so then the explanation which I decoded by > crystal ball probably looks like this: > > Bit 0: Don't know whether it's masked > Bit 1: Perhaps it's masked > Bit 2: Probably it's masked > Bit 3: Mostly masked > ... > Bit 31: Fully masked > > Or something like that. Makes a lot of sense in a XKCD cartoon at least. >
After a close look, we can simply do away with this mask_bits. Looks like a crystal ball will not be required next time around after all.
>> +} >> + >> +/** >> + * dev_ims_mask_irq - Generic irq chip callback to mask IMS interrupts >> + * @data: pointer to irqdata associated to that interrupt >> + */ >> +static void dev_ims_mask_irq(struct irq_data *data) >> +{ >> + struct msi_desc *desc = irq_data_get_msi_desc(data); >> + >> + desc->platform.masked = __dev_ims_desc_mask_irq(desc, 1); > > The purpose of this masked information is?
serves no purpose, borrowed this concept from the PCI-msi code but is just junk here. Will be removed next time around.
> > Thanks, > > tglx >
| |