On 2020-08-06 02:15, Daejun Park wrote:
> > + req->end_io_data = (void *)map_req;
>
> Please leave the (void *) cast out since explicit casts from a non-void
> to a void pointer are not necessary in C.
OK, I will fix it.
> > +static inline struct
> > +ufshpb_rsp_field *ufshpb_get_hpb_rsp(struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
> > +{
> > + return (struct ufshpb_rsp_field
> > *)&lrbp->ucd_rsp_ptr->sr.sense_data_len;
> > +}
>
> Please introduce a union in struct utp_cmd_rsp instead of using casts
> to reinterpret a part of a data structure.
OK. I will introduce a union in struct utp_cmd_rsp and use it.
> > +/* routine : isr (ufs) */
>
> The above comment looks very cryptic. Should it perhaps be expanded?
>
> > +struct ufshpb_active_field {
> > + __be16 active_rgn;
> > + __be16 active_srgn;
> > +} __packed;
>
> Since "__packed" is not necessary for the above data structure, please
> remove it. Note: a typical approach in the Linux kernel to verify that
> the compiler has not inserted any padding bytes is to add a BUILD_BUG_ON()
> statement in an initialization function that verifies the size of ABI data
> structures. See also the output of the following command:
>
> git grep -nH 'BUILD_BUG_ON.sizeof.*!='
OK, I didn't know about it. Thanks.
> > +struct ufshpb_rsp_field {
> > + __be16 sense_data_len;
> > + u8 desc_type;
> > + u8 additional_len;
> > + u8 hpb_type;
> > + u8 reserved;
> > + u8 active_rgn_cnt;
> > + u8 inactive_rgn_cnt;
> > + struct ufshpb_active_field hpb_active_field[2];
> > + __be16 hpb_inactive_field[2];
> > +} __packed;
>
> I think the above __packed statement should also be left out.
OK, I will remove it.
Thanks,
Daejun
