[PATCH v2 2/3] firmware: mediatek: Use meaningful names for mbox

[Tinghan Shen]

Hi Angelo,

On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 14:37 +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 09/06/22 10:31, Tinghan Shen ha scritto:
> > Rename mbox according to action instead of 'mbox0' and 'mbox1'
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen at mediatek.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c | 6 +++++-
> >   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > index cb255a99170c..3de94765d659 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
> > @@ -83,7 +83,11 @@ static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   		return -ENOMEM;
> >   
> >   	for (i = 0; i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM; i++) {
> > -		chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "mbox%d", i);
> > +		if (i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM / 2)
> > +			chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rep");
> > +		else
> > +			chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "req");
> > +
> >   		if (!chan_name) {
> >   			ret = -ENOMEM;
> >   			goto out;
> 
> At this point, just call them "reply" and "request", as that simply provides a
> perfectly clear explanation.
> 
> Besides, I'm sorry but I really don't like this code, it's really too much
> fragile and will have to be changed entirely if a third mbox is introduced.
> 
> I can suggest a cooler way:
> 
> static const char * const adsp_mbox_ch_names[MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM] = { "rep", "req" };
> 
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(adsp_mbox_ch_names); i++) {
> 	/* we can delete chan_name and also avoid a kfree if we do... */
> 
> 	.... code ....
> 
> 	adsp_chan->ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, adsp_mbox_ch_names[i]);
> 
> 	... etc etc ...
> }
> 
> Cheers,
> Angelo

Ok, I'll update in the next version.
Thank you!


Best regards,
TingHan