Hi Vadim,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 10:10:46 +0000
Vadim Fedorenko <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + u32 slot_map, struct qmc_chan_ts_info
> > *ts_info)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch
> > (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = 0;
> > + map = slot_map;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
> > + ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots 0x%llx ->
> > (0x%llx,0x%llx)\n",
> > + map, ts_mask_avail, ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_info->tx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask = ts_mask;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
> > + const struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info, u32
> > *slot_map)
> > +{
> > + u64 ts_mask_avail;
> > + unsigned int bit;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + u64 ts_mask;
> > + u64 map;
> > +
>
> Starting from here ...
>
> > + /* Tx and Rx masks must be identical */
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail != ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx available timeslots mismatch
> > (0x%llx, 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail, ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > + if (ts_info->rx_ts_mask != ts_info->tx_ts_mask) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "tx and rx timeslots mismatch (0x%llx,
> > 0x%llx)\n",
> > + ts_info->rx_ts_mask, ts_info->tx_ts_mask);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
> > + ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
> > + map = 0;
> > + bit = 0;
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > + if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
> > + if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
> > + map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
> > + bit++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hweight64(ts_mask) != hweight64(map)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots
> > (0x%llx,0x%llx) -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
>
> till here the block looks like copy of the block from previous function.
> It worth to make a separate function for it, I think.
>
> > + if (map >= BIT_ULL(32)) {
> > + dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Slot map out of 32bit (0x%llx,0x%llx)
> > -> 0x%llx\n",
> > + ts_mask_avail, ts_mask, map);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *slot_map = map;
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
[...]
I am not so sure. There are slighty differences between the two functions.
The error messages and, in particular, the loop in qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map() is:
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = 0;
map = slot_map;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (map & BIT_ULL(bit))
ts_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
whereas it is the following in qmc_hdlc_xlate_ts_info():
--- 8< ---
ts_mask_avail = ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail;
ts_mask = ts_info->rx_ts_mask;
map = 0;
bit = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
if (ts_mask_avail & BIT_ULL(i)) {
if (ts_mask & BIT_ULL(i))
map |= BIT_ULL(bit);
bit++;
}
}
--- 8< ---
ts_map and map initializations are not the same, i and bit are not used for
the same purpose and the computed value is not computed based on the same
information.
With that pointed, I am not sure that having some common code for both
function will be relevant. Your opinion ?
Best regards,
Hervé
