On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 12:08:57 +0200 Ivan Vecera wrote:
> +/**
> + * zl3073x_flash_download_block - Download image block to device memory
> + * @zldev: zl3073x device structure
> + * @image: image to be downloaded
> + * @start: start position (in 32-bit words)
> + * @size: size to download (in 32-bit words)
> + * @extack: netlink extack pointer to report errors
> + *
> + * Returns 0 in case of success or negative value otherwise.
> + */
> +static int
> +zl3073x_flash_download(struct zl3073x_dev *zldev, const char *component,
> + u32 addr, const void *data, size_t size,
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
function name doesn't match kdoc, and "Returns" -> "Return:"
No idea why the kernel-doc script doesn't catch this..
> + rc = zl3073x_write_hwreg(zldev, addr, *(const u32 *)ptr);
you're sure data is 4B aligned? Otherwise get_unaligned()
> + if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
time_after_jiffies() ?
> + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> + ZL_FLASH_ERR_MSG(extack,
> + "Flashing interrupted");
> + return -EINTR;
> + }
Is the flash dual-banked? Normally random signals interrupting flashing
is recipe for bricked parts.
A little odd to use "timeout" for periodic check. check_time?
> + /* Return if no error occurred */
> + if (!count)
> + return 0;
Did I already accus^W ask you if AI helped you write this ? :D
This level of commenting makes me think of code generators :)
+ /* Enable host control */
+ rc = zl3073x_flash_host_ctrl_enable(zldev);
+ if (rc) {
+ ZL_FLASH_ERR_MSG(extack, "cannot enable host control");
+ goto error;
+ }
+
+ zl3073x_devlink_flash_notify(zldev, "Flash mode enabled", "utility",
+ 0, 0);
+
+ return 0;
+
+error:
+ rc = zl3073x_flash_mode_leave(zldev, extack);
+ if (rc)
+ ZL_FLASH_ERR_MSG(extack,
+ "failed to switch back to normal mode");
+
+ return rc;
Should we be overriding rc here if there was an error on entering
but we cleanly left? If so that _is_ worth commenting on..
--
pw-bot: cr
