From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F7B45BF5;
Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:03:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D685040289;
Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:03:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-pf1-f181.google.com (mail-pf1-f181.google.com
[209.85.210.181])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4EB4026B
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:03:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pf1-f181.google.com with SMTP id
d2e1a72fcca58-7205b6f51f3so1485732b3a.1
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1730048613;
x=1730653413; darn=dpdk.org;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date
:message-id:reply-to;
bh=BOl/kph0PWn9R/tP3gEbJDKGW/r3UTybWRxzJ982hzY=;
b=Wz9z8a12ar8UuentBY1c0gUkJ3JM14dmVwX9uNZSwskU6XOJl+7DLSrsLve3bVPR3K
zZBDC/NulinbdrPuO4nQBb/9DR3e6Sv6f9z9iZz0wnf0Cm0DpzgrnYOTw90S99vsXWC8
cFJGEmVwCzna/xvxxcwDMZ61Bl/v/l1Kyj1lqgXqCcDuULBlCHkllhPhBLE+t/b1grmd
Hbl7UBXMusXPiYvSiiIp2CWIHHhSiYUOJx602aVJOt+xv5tPZeEnJm/L4Cqo3MOe3PKM
rC5gcfEHLlocMoIEdc8zyYXhmvIEimPPrOd07TIIWhc918uYx7C6Khy0VCPsZlDFfV+x
wRSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730048613; x=1730653413;
h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to
:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=BOl/kph0PWn9R/tP3gEbJDKGW/r3UTybWRxzJ982hzY=;
b=IjYixpfh5lVIfsPixqRUs2+jTeC/UDt1thDatpsukGnRHefZvb2bYbqOmiQNFumEJ6
CqcKf3QqZlpQtbOqU0y3AcpPJcZD+HWdqcfaES3j4gpncEbjNCsrwHiTW1dkmh7Bs7wz
9im8bg14yYxPOiL2/yEFlecwX4x1yZzXq5+4T7RUd4coGnz6BtMil5Ev8L9WMFQntRKZ
oLnxMukXspGC+LuuYLfvDcj+TiX3TTR8aNz3gunbpRtMfHaruVePprSgAy01ZjJVNlZl
xlcUGw3+hbd8T6nLVUriCeR4vlDujCl8gX313giGBYP1bBRFNKIDmqnuGR5lja1yT+Wh
FJjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxdfoZShg+MJ/uz+RmOJUYs3uAni7YXn0XgEivRmKAvf7hqiiiv
J2QPFM6mEOiDM0BFqgHeCRZOiH9CoP89YCKq4dje4wgQr0G2EP3OtErz46bz+uU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGtZKwXjayvs1MxKS5gJaVRYUN7U3HXQ3UZu5ONIvyX26SfmylpkZCRLHlUCKWQURxJS98hWw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:9a4:b0:71e:19a:c48b with SMTP id
d2e1a72fcca58-7206303657dmr9532694b3a.22.1730048612754;
Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
d2e1a72fcca58-72057a0b8e2sm4256113b3a.102.2024.10.27.10.03.32
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 10:03:30 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Junlong Wang <wang.junlong1@zte.com.cn>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, thomas@monjalon.net, ferruh.yigit@amd.com,
wang.yong19@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] net/zxdh: add zxdh dev configure ops
Message-ID: <20241027100330.24d3e978@hermes.local>
In-Reply-To: <20241027094048.2ed2f342@hermes.local>
References: <20241016081647.1808333-2-wang.junlong1@zte.com.cn>
<20241022122042.2127065-1-wang.junlong1@zte.com.cn>
<20241022122042.2127065-10-wang.junlong1@zte.com.cn>
<20241027094048.2ed2f342@hermes.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 09:40:48 -0700
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:20:42 +0800
> Junlong Wang <wang.junlong1@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> > +int32_t zxdh_acquire_lock(struct zxdh_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t var = zxdh_read_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg, ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG);
> > +
> > + /* check whether lock is used */
> > + if (!(var & ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK))
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int32_t zxdh_release_lock(struct zxdh_hw *hw)
> > +{
> > + uint32_t var = zxdh_read_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg, ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG);
> > +
> > + if (var & ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK) {
> > + var &= ~ZXDH_VF_LOCK_ENABLE_MASK;
> > + zxdh_write_comm_reg((uint64_t)hw->common_cfg, ZXDH_VF_LOCK_REG, var);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return -1;
> > +}
> > +
>
> It is your driver, so you are free to name functions as appropriate.
>
> But it would make more sense to make the hardware lock follow the pattern
> of existing spinlock's etc.
I am suggesting:
static bool zxdh_try_lock(hw);
void zxdh_release_lock(hw);
also, move the loop into a new function, something like:
int zxdh_timedlock(hw, uint32_t us);