Hi Andy,

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:47:34 +0200
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:

...

quoted

+static int qmc_hdlc_xlate_slot_map(struct qmc_hdlc *qmc_hdlc,
+				   u32 slot_map, struct qmc_chan_ts_info *ts_info)
+{
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(ts_mask_avail, 64);
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(ts_mask, 64);
+	DECLARE_BITMAP(map, 64);  

Perhaps more 1:1 naming?

	DECLARE_BITMAP(rx_ts_mask_avail, 64);
	DECLARE_BITMAP(tx_ts_mask, 64);
	DECLARE_BITMAP(slot_map, 64);

I disagree.

I first check that ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail and ts_info->tx_ts_mask_avail are
identical then I use one of them to create the ts_mask_avail.
Then I compute the ts_mask and update both ts_info->tx_ts_mask and
ts_info->rx_ts_mask.

ts_mask_avail and ts_mask bitmaps are used for tx and rx.
I could name them txrx_ts_mask* but that doesn't do much.

For DECLARE_BITMAP(slot_map, 64), slot_map is the name of the function
parameter...
I think we can keep 'map' for the bitmap here.

quoted

+	/* Tx and Rx available 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;
+	}
+
+	bitmap_from_u64(ts_mask_avail, ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail);
+	bitmap_from_u64(map, slot_map);
+	bitmap_scatter(ts_mask, map, ts_mask_avail, 64);
+
+	if (bitmap_weight(ts_mask, 64) != bitmap_weight(map, 64)) {
+		dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "Cannot translate timeslots %*pb -> (%*pb, %*pb)\n",
+			64, map, 64, ts_mask_avail, 64, ts_mask);  

You can save a bit of code and stack:

Will be updated in the next iteration.

...
 

quoted

+	ret = qmc_chan_get_ts_info(qmc_hdlc->qmc_chan, &ts_info);
+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(qmc_hdlc->dev, "get QMC channel ts info failed %d\n", ret);
+		return ret;  

		return dev_err_probe(...);

Will be updated too :)

quoted

+	}  

Thanks for the review,
Hervé