[PATCH 19/50] wifi: ath12k: add hal.c

[Karthikeyan Periyasamy (QUIC)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson at quicinc.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 5:23 AM
> To: Kalle Valo <kvalo at kernel.org>; linux-wireless at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: ath12k at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/50] wifi: ath12k: add hal.c
> 
> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary
> of any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
> 
> On 8/12/2022 9:09 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> > From: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo at quicinc.com>
> >
> > (Patches split into one patch per file for easier review, but the
> > final commit will be one big patch. See the cover letter for more
> > info.)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo at quicinc.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/hal.c | 2179
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 file changed, 2179 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/hal.c
> > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/hal.c
> 
> snip
> 
> > +static void ath12k_hal_srng_src_hw_init(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> > +                                     struct hal_srng *srng) {
> 
> snip
> 
> > +     /* interrupt setup */
> > +     /* NOTE: IPQ8074 v2 requires the interrupt timer threshold in the
> > +      * unit of 8 usecs instead of 1 usec (as required by v1).
> 
> why do we care about IPQ8074 when it isn't supported by this driver?
> and where is the 8 us vs 1 us logic anyway?
>

Sure will address in the next version of the patch

> > +      */
> > +     val = u32_encode_bits(srng->intr_timer_thres_us,
> > +
> > + HAL_TCL1_RING_CONSR_INT_SETUP_IX0_INTR_TMR_THOLD);
> 
> snip
> 
> > +static void ath12k_hal_srng_update_hp_tp_addr(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> > +                                           int shadow_cfg_idx,
> > +                                       enum hal_ring_type ring_type,
> > +                                       int ring_num)
> 
> inconsistent indentation?
> snip
> 

Sure will address in the next version of the patch

> > +void ath12k_hal_srng_shadow_update_hp_tp(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> > +                                      struct hal_srng *srng) {
> > +     lockdep_assert_held(&srng->lock);
> > +
> > +     /* check whether the ring is emptry. Update the shadow
> 
> s/emptry/empty/

Sure will address in the next version of the patch

> 
> > +      * HP only when then ring isn't' empty.
> > +      */
> > +     if (srng->ring_dir == HAL_SRNG_DIR_SRC &&
> > +         *srng->u.src_ring.tp_addr != srng->u.src_ring.hp)
> > +             ath12k_hal_srng_access_end(ab, srng); }
> > +
> 
> snip
> 
> > +void ath12k_hal_srng_deinit(struct ath12k_base *ab) {
> > +     struct ath12k_hal *hal = &ab->hal;
> > +
> > +     ath12k_hal_unregister_srng_lock_keys(ab);
> > +     ath12k_hal_free_cont_rdp(ab);
> > +     ath12k_hal_free_cont_wrp(ab);
> > +     kfree(hal->srng_config);
> 
> perhaps set hal->srng_config = NULL so that there isn't a dangling pointer?

Sure will address in the next version of the patch

> 
> snip

Thanks
Karthikeyan