Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] scpi: Add cmd indirection table to prepare for legacy commands

[Sudeep Holla]

Hi Neil,

On 07/09/16 16:34, Neil Armstrong wrote:

Add indirection table to permit multiple command values for legacy support.

I wrote the most of the patch and you changed the author too ;)

Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstr...@baylibre.com>
---
 drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
index 4388937..9a87687 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c

[..]

@@ -161,6 +194,7 @@ struct scpi_drvinfo {
        u32 protocol_version;
        u32 firmware_version;
        int num_chans;
+       int *scpi_cmds;
        atomic_t next_chan;
        struct scpi_ops *scpi_ops;
        struct scpi_chan *channels;
@@ -390,6 +424,19 @@ static u32 scpi_get_version(void)
        return scpi_info->protocol_version;
 }

+static inline int check_cmd(unsigned int offset)
+{
+       if (offset >= CMD_MAX_COUNT ||

If we call scpi_send_message internally(as it's static) why is this
check needed ?

+           !scpi_info ||
+           !scpi_info->scpi_cmds)

Will be even reach to this point if above is true ?

+               return -EINVAL;
+
+       if (scpi_info->scpi_cmds[offset] < 0)
+               return -EOPNOTSUPP;

IMO just above couple of lines in the beginning of scpi_send_message
will suffice. You can just add this to my original patch.

 static int
 scpi_clk_get_range(u16 clk_id, unsigned long *min, unsigned long *max)
 {
@@ -397,8 +444,13 @@ scpi_clk_get_range(u16 clk_id, unsigned long *min, 
unsigned long *max)
        struct clk_get_info clk;
        __le16 le_clk_id = cpu_to_le16(clk_id);

-       ret = scpi_send_message(SCPI_CMD_GET_CLOCK_INFO, &le_clk_id,
-                               sizeof(le_clk_id), &clk, sizeof(clk));
+       ret = check_cmd(CMD_GET_CLOCK_INFO);
+       if (ret)
+               return ret;
+

It's totally unnecessary to add check in each and every function calling
scpi_send_message, why not add it to scpi_send_message instead.

--
Regards,
Sudeep