[PATCH 1/3] Revert "staging: mmal-vchiq: Avoid use of bool in structures"

[Umang Jain]

Hi Greg,

On 11/17/22 11:32 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 11:25:48PM +0530, Umang Jain wrote:
>> Hi Kieran,
>>
>> On 11/17/22 9:39 PM, Kieran Bingham wrote:
>>> Quoting Umang Jain (2022-11-17 16:00:13)
>>>> This reverts commit 640e77466e69d9c28de227bc76881f5501f532ca.
>>>>
>>>> In commit 7967656ffbfa ("coding-style: Clarify the expectations around
>>>> bool") the check to dis-allow bool structure members was removed from
>>>> checkpatch.pl. It promotes bool structure members to store boolean
>>>> values. This enhances code readability.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain at ideasonboard.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    .../staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c    | 12 ++++++------
>>>>    .../staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h    |  4 ++--
>>>>    2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
>>>> index cb921c94996a..4abb6178cb9f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
>>>> @@ -863,9 +863,9 @@ static int port_info_get(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
>>>>                   goto release_msg;
>>>>           if (rmsg->u.port_info_get_reply.port.is_enabled == 0)
>>>> -               port->enabled = 0;
>>>> +               port->enabled = false;
>>>>           else
>>>> -               port->enabled = 1;
>>>> +               port->enabled = true;
>>>>           /* copy the values out of the message */
>>>>           port->handle = rmsg->u.port_info_get_reply.port_handle;
>>>> @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ static int port_disable(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
>>>>           if (!port->enabled)
>>>>                   return 0;
>>>> -       port->enabled = 0;
>>>> +       port->enabled = false;
>>>>           ret = port_action_port(instance, port,
>>>>                                  MMAL_MSG_PORT_ACTION_TYPE_DISABLE);
>>>> @@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ static int port_enable(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
>>>>           if (ret)
>>>>                   goto done;
>>>> -       port->enabled = 1;
>>>> +       port->enabled = true;
>>>>           if (port->buffer_cb) {
>>>>                   /* send buffer headers to videocore */
>>>> @@ -1531,7 +1531,7 @@ int vchiq_mmal_port_connect_tunnel(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
>>>>                           pr_err("failed disconnecting src port\n");
>>>>                           goto release_unlock;
>>>>                   }
>>>> -               src->connected->enabled = 0;
>>>> +               src->connected->enabled = false;
>>>>                   src->connected = NULL;
>>>>           }
>>>> @@ -1799,7 +1799,7 @@ int vchiq_mmal_component_disable(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
>>>>           ret = disable_component(instance, component);
>>>>           if (ret == 0)
>>>> -               component->enabled = 0;
>>>> +               component->enabled = false;
>>>>           mutex_unlock(&instance->vchiq_mutex);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
>>>> index 6006e29232b3..70eda6cac1c6 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
>>>> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ typedef void (*vchiq_mmal_buffer_cb)(
>>>>                   int status, struct mmal_buffer *buffer);
>>>>    struct vchiq_mmal_port {
>>>> -       u32 enabled:1;
>>>> +       bool enabled:1;
>>> Is this a direct revert with 'git revert' ?
>>
>> No. It had conflicts plus I added the ':1' initialization to keep the logic
>> same (in case 'enabled' gets used directly). Similar pattern come up with:
>>      ($) git grep 'bool' -- '*.[h]' | grep '\:1'
>>
>> So it shouldn't be an issue.
> Please don't do that "bool foo:1" makes no sense.  Drop the ":1"
> please.

It won't affect this patch but if you take a look at 2/3 - you'll see a 
bool flag 'in_use' that needs to be initialized (as it's getting used 
directly).

I can move the initialization part in the function (_init() or 
something) and drop the ":1" as you mentioned. That's  fine as well but 
I do find patterns of 'bool foo:1' in the codebase so I assumed it would 
be safe to use.


>   
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h