On 11/10/2025 8:43 AM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> +impl<'a> Iterator for GspSeqIter<'a> {
>> + type Item = Result<GspSeqCmd>;
>> +
>> + fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
>> + // Stop if we've processed all commands or reached the end of data.
>> + if self.cmds_processed >= self.total_cmds || self.current_offset >=
>> self.cmd_data.len() {
>> + return None;
>> + }
>> +
>> + // Check if we have enough data for opcode.
>> + let opcode_size = size_of::<fw::GSP_SEQ_BUF_OPCODE>();
>> + if self.current_offset + opcode_size > self.cmd_data.len() {
[..]>> + let offset = self.current_offset;
>> +
>> + // Handle command creation based on available data,
>> + // zero-pad if necessary (since last command may not be full size).
>> + let mut buffer = [0u8; CMD_SIZE];
>> + let copy_len = if offset + CMD_SIZE <= self.cmd_data.len() {
>> + CMD_SIZE
>> + } else {
>> + self.cmd_data.len() - offset
>> + };
>> + buffer[..copy_len].copy_from_slice(&self.cmd_data[offset..offset +
>> copy_len]);
>> + let cmd_result = GspSeqCmd::new(&buffer, self.dev);
>> +
>> + cmd_result.map_or_else(
>> + |_err| {
>> + dev_err!(self.dev, "Error parsing command at offset {}",
>> offset);
>> + None
>> + },
>> This looks a bit redundant: we are processing errors here, but then we
> also have another error handler in the caller (the one that says "Error
> running command..."). I'm pretty sure there is room for simplification
> here.
No, "Error running command" is because of .run() failure. We won't even get
there if .next() fails. AFAICS, there is no other diagnostic other than this if
command parsing fails.
Thanks.
