From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Srinivasan Raju <srini.raju@purelifi.com>
Cc: "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <devel@driverdev.osuosl.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, pureLiFi Ltd <info@purelifi.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
mostafa.afgani@purelifi.com,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 22:07:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200924190758.GM4282@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924151910.21693-1-srini.raju@purelifi.com>
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:48:51PM +0530, Srinivasan Raju wrote:
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +
> +#include "def.h"
> +#include "chip.h"
> +#include "mac.h"
> +#include "usb.h"
> +#include "log.h"
> +
> +void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip,
> + struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> + struct usb_interface *intf
> + )
There is a bunch of really trivial messiness like this. It should
look like:
void purelifi_chip_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip,
struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
struct usb_interface *intf)
> +{
> + memset(chip, 0, sizeof(*chip));
> + mutex_init(&chip->mutex);
> + purelifi_usb_init(&chip->usb, hw, intf);
> +}
> +
> +void purelifi_chip_clear(struct purelifi_chip *chip)
> +{
> + PURELIFI_ASSERT(!mutex_is_locked(&chip->mutex));
> + purelifi_usb_clear(&chip->usb);
> + mutex_destroy(&chip->mutex);
> + PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR(chip, sizeof(*chip));
Get rid of the PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() macro. The weird thing about
PURELIFI_MEMCLEAR() is that sometimes it's a no-op. It seems
unnecessary to memset() the struct here.
I'm not a fan of all these tiny functions. It feels like I have to
jump around a lot to understand the code. What does "clear" mean in
this context. Probably "release" is a better name.
> +}
> +
> +static int scnprint_mac_oui(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer,
> + size_t size)
> +{
> + u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip));
> +
> + return scnprintf(buffer, size, "%02x-%02x-%02x",
> + addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]);
> +}
> +
> +/* Prints an identifier line, which will support debugging. */
> +static int scnprint_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip, char *buffer, size_t size)
This function name is too vague. What ID is it printing?
> +{
> + int i = 0;
The initialization is not required. "i" means "iterator". This should
be "cnt" instead.
> +
> + i = scnprintf(buffer, size, "purelifi%s chip ", "");
> + i += purelifi_usb_scnprint_id(&chip->usb, buffer + i, size - i);
> + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " ");
> + i += scnprint_mac_oui(chip, buffer + i, size - i);
> + i += scnprintf(buffer + i, size - i, " ");
> + return i;
This is an example of how tiny functions obfuscate the code. It should
be written like this:
static void print_whatever(struct purelifi_chip *chip)
{
u8 *addr = purelifi_mac_get_perm_addr(purelifi_chip_to_mac(chip));
struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(chip->usb.intf);
pr_info("purelifi chip 04hx:%04hx v%04hx %s %02x-%02x-%02x\n",
le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idVendor),
le16_to_cpu(udev->descriptor.idProduct),
get_bcd_device(udev),
speed(udev->speed),
addr[0], addr[1], addr[2]);
}
> +}
> +
> +static void print_id(struct purelifi_chip *chip)
> +{
> + char buffer[80];
> +
> + scnprint_id(chip, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
> + buffer[sizeof(buffer) - 1] = 0;
snprintf() functions alway put a NUL terminator on the end of the string.
> + pl_dev_info(purelifi_chip_dev(chip), "%s\n", buffer);
> +}
> +
> +/* MAC address: if custom mac addresses are to be used CR_MAC_ADDR_P1 and
> + * CR_MAC_ADDR_P2 must be overwritten
> + */
> +int purelifi_write_mac_addr(struct purelifi_chip *chip, const u8 *mac_addr)
> +{
> + int r;
> +
> + r = usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR);
> + return r;
Delete the "r" variable.
return usb_write_req(mac_addr, ETH_ALEN, USB_REQ_MAC_WR);
Again, I'm not a huge fan of one line functions for no reason. Actually,
the function is never called. Just delete it.
> +}
> +
> +int purelifi_set_beacon_interval(struct purelifi_chip *chip, u16 interval,
> + u8 dtim_period, int type)
> +{
> + int r;
> +
> + if (!interval || (chip->beacon_set &&
> + chip->beacon_interval == interval)) {
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + chip->beacon_interval = interval;
> + chip->beacon_set = true;
> + r = usb_write_req((const u8 *)&chip->beacon_interval,
> + sizeof(chip->beacon_interval),
> + USB_REQ_BEACON_INTERVAL_WR);
> + return r;
Delete the "r" variable.
> +}
> +
> +static int hw_init(struct purelifi_chip *chip)
> +{
> + return purelifi_set_beacon_interval(chip, 100, 0, 0);
> +}
This is a oneline function which is only called once. Move it inline.
> +
> +int purelifi_chip_init_hw(struct purelifi_chip *chip)
> +{
> + int r;
> +
> + r = hw_init(chip);
> + if (r)
> + goto out;
Just return directly. The little bunny hop doesn't add anything.
> +
> + print_id(chip);
> +out:
> + return r;
> +}
Anyway, those are some ideas.
regards,
dan carpenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-24 19:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 118+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-24 15:18 [PATCH] staging: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi devices Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-24 15:36 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-24 17:24 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-24 17:29 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-28 10:25 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-24 15:37 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-09-24 18:28 ` Randy Dunlap
2020-09-28 10:27 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-24 19:07 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2020-09-28 10:26 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-28 10:19 ` [PATCH] [v2] wireless: " Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-28 12:07 ` Joe Perches
2020-09-28 12:53 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-30 5:16 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-30 5:29 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-09-30 8:01 ` Kalle Valo
2020-09-30 9:55 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-09-30 10:11 ` Johannes Berg
2020-09-30 10:44 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-16 8:23 ` Kalle Valo
2020-09-30 8:05 ` Kalle Valo
2020-09-30 10:04 ` Leon Romanovsky
2020-10-14 6:19 ` [PATCH] [PATCH] [v3] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-14 10:17 ` kernel test robot
2020-10-15 22:35 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-16 6:36 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-16 6:34 ` [PATCH] [v4] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-16 8:58 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-16 10:13 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-19 3:17 ` [PATCH] [v5] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-19 4:55 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 6:05 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-19 8:38 ` [PATCH] [v6] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-19 16:07 ` Krishna Chaitanya
2020-10-19 16:40 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-10-19 16:54 ` Joe Perches
2020-10-19 17:05 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-11-16 9:22 ` [PATCH] [v7] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-11-16 20:45 ` Joe Perches
2020-11-18 3:24 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-11-24 14:44 ` Kalle Valo
[not found] ` <20201124144448.4E95EC43460@smtp.codeaurora.org>
2020-11-26 5:01 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-03 4:43 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-03 15:58 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-03 16:50 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-19 13:15 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-03 4:38 ` [PATCH] [v8] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-03 5:09 ` [PATCH] [v9] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-03 7:53 ` Joe Perches
2020-12-08 5:53 ` [PATCH] [v10] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-08 11:57 ` [PATCH] [v11] " Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-08 14:37 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-19 12:51 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-19 13:06 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-19 13:14 ` Kalle Valo
2020-12-21 5:52 ` Srinivasan Raju
2020-12-21 5:57 ` Kalle Valo
2021-01-15 12:13 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-01-05 13:19 ` [PATCH] [PATCH] [v12] " Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-12 11:49 ` [PATCH] [v13] " Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-12 13:44 ` Johannes Berg
2021-02-17 10:05 ` Kalle Valo
2021-02-19 5:15 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-19 8:25 ` Johannes Berg
2021-02-24 10:41 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-12 15:06 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-12 17:57 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-17 10:02 ` Kalle Valo
2021-02-17 10:13 ` Kalle Valo
2021-02-17 10:16 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-17 10:09 ` Kalle Valo
2021-02-17 10:19 ` Kalle Valo
2021-02-24 10:44 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-02-26 13:07 ` [PATCH] [v14] " Srinivasan Raju
2021-04-19 11:52 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-08-10 13:02 ` Srinivasan Raju
2021-08-21 13:42 ` Kalle Valo
2021-08-18 14:13 ` [PATCH] [v15] " Srinivasan Raju
2021-09-20 13:05 ` Kalle Valo
[not found] ` <CWLP265MB3217BB5AA5F102629A3AD204E0A19@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2021-09-21 12:30 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo
2021-09-22 7:33 ` Johannes Berg
2021-09-24 13:27 ` [EXTERNAL] " Srinivasan Raju
2021-09-20 14:11 ` Kalle Valo
2021-09-24 11:11 ` Kalle Valo
2021-09-24 13:26 ` [PATCH] [v16] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi LiFi Station Srinivasan Raju
2021-09-24 13:40 ` Kalle Valo
2021-10-05 11:22 ` [PATCH] [v17] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-05 11:26 ` Johannes Berg
2021-10-05 12:30 ` [PATCH] [v18 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to enum nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-05 12:31 ` [PATCH] [v18 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-05 22:09 ` Jeff Johnson
2021-10-06 10:04 ` [PATCH] [v19 " Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-11 6:16 ` Kalle Valo
2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] [v19 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to enum nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-12 12:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] [v19 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-14 6:03 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-24 17:58 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-18 10:00 ` [PATCH v20 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-25 9:59 ` Kari Argillander
[not found] ` <CWLP265MB321780AB502EF147F6AAF197E0839@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2021-10-25 12:17 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo
2021-10-27 11:34 ` kernel test robot
2021-10-27 12:38 ` Kari Argillander
2021-10-28 7:24 ` Kalle Valo
2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH v21 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju
2021-10-31 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2021-12-20 19:13 ` Kalle Valo
2022-02-24 15:35 ` Kalle Valo
2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 0/2] wireless: New Driver " Srinivasan Raju
2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 1/2] nl80211: Add LC placeholder band definition to nl80211_band Srinivasan Raju
2022-02-25 9:52 ` Kalle Valo
2022-02-24 18:20 ` [PATCH v22 1/2] wireless: Initial driver submission for pureLiFi STA devices Srinivasan Raju
2022-04-25 13:06 ` Kalle Valo
[not found] ` <CWLP265MB32173F6188304F6B2CB90C79E0F89@CWLP265MB3217.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
2022-04-26 4:17 ` [EXTERNAL] " Kalle Valo
2022-04-27 4:55 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200924190758.GM4282@kadam \
--to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=info@purelifi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
--cc=mostafa.afgani@purelifi.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=srini.raju@purelifi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).