Jiri, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jiri Slaby [mailto:jirislaby@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 5:18 PM > To: Savoy, Pavan > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers:staging:ti-st: move TI_ST from staging > > On 10/06/2010 10:08 PM, Savoy, Pavan wrote: > >> On 10/06/2010 06:18 PM, pavan_savoy@xxxxxx wrote: > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/drivers/misc/ti-st/st_core.c > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,1031 @@ > >> ... > >>> +#define PROTO_ENTRY(type, name) name > >>> +const unsigned char *protocol_strngs[] = { > >>> + PROTO_ENTRY(ST_BT, "Bluetooth"), > >>> + PROTO_ENTRY(ST_FM, "FM"), > >>> + PROTO_ENTRY(ST_GPS, "GPS"), > >>> +}; > >> > >> Is this planned to be used somewhere? > > > > Yes- would go in the debugfs. > > Doesn't it already? Will check up, & will remove if not required. > > The thing probably is that you have protocol_strngs here and > protocol_names there. > > >>> + pr_err("protocol %d not registered, no data to send?", > >>> + protoid); > >> > >> Missing \n. And all over the code. > > > > With pr_fmt defined in each source file, the "\n" is not necessary. > > I don't see the logs getting all jumbled up in one line. > > > > However If I don't have a pr_fmt, I see the need for "\n" - Please suggest. > > I can't explain that, but I see no reason why you wouldn't need \n > there. It expands to standard printk(KERN_ERR "(stc): " fmt) where fmt > should contain \n. I remember Linus sending a patch to the list which > added \n by default if <.> is about to be printed next. But I don't know > if he pushed it out. You can check printk implementation. > > >>> +static inline int st_check_data_len(struct st_data_s *st_gdata, > >> > >> It doesn't look like a candidate for inlining. > > > > Because? > > Because it does too much to be an inline. The compiler will inline that > itself on its own if it decides to. It can count the pros and cons more > precisely than we can. Also note that gcc will un-inline that if it > decides to (if the inlining penalty is too high). > > >>> +int st_core_init(struct st_data_s **core_data) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct st_data_s *st_gdata; > >>> + long err; > >>> + static struct tty_ldisc_ops *st_ldisc_ops; > >>> + > >>> + /* populate and register to TTY line discipline */ > >>> + st_ldisc_ops = kzalloc(sizeof(*st_ldisc_ops), GFP_KERNEL); > >>> + if (!st_ldisc_ops) { > >>> + pr_err("no mem to allocate"); > >>> + return -ENOMEM; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->magic = TTY_LDISC_MAGIC; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->name = "n_st"; /*"n_hci"; */ > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->open = st_tty_open; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->close = st_tty_close; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->receive_buf = st_tty_receive; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->write_wakeup = st_tty_wakeup; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->flush_buffer = st_tty_flush_buffer; > >>> + st_ldisc_ops->owner = THIS_MODULE; > >> > >> This can be static structure, you don't need to allocate this on heap. > >> It should be a singleton. > > > > Yes, I got this comment before, but is it just a style issue? > > I want to keep this in heap because some day, I hope TTY ldics have their > own > > private_data, which I can pass around like the tty_struct's data. > > and having them in heap, I plan to keep a reference to ops structure, so > that I > > can pass around and use ops->private_data everywhere .. > > I doubt ldisc ops will ever have ->private_data. What would you need it > for? The ops generally work with ttys which have ->disc_data. Yes, But in this case, I required something which can be set during ldisc_register, and can be picked up during tty_open. In any case, I will put up a patch for rest of the comments, Thanks. > >>> +void kim_int_recv(struct kim_data_s *kim_gdata, > >>> + const unsigned char *data, long count) > >>> +{ > >>> + register char *ptr; > >>> + struct hci_event_hdr *eh; > >>> + register int len = 0, type = 0; > >> > >> registers > >> > >>> + pr_debug("%s", __func__); > >> > >> \n > >> > >>> + /* Decode received bytes here */ > >>> + ptr = (char *)data; > >> > >> Casting from const to non-const. It doesn't look correct. > > > > So, would I rather declare ptr as const? > > Yes, if that makes sense. Otherwise de-const data. > > >>> +long st_kim_start(void *kim_data) > >>> +{ > >>> + long err = 0; > >>> + long retry = POR_RETRY_COUNT; > >>> + struct kim_data_s *kim_gdata = (struct kim_data_s *)kim_data; > >>> + > >>> + pr_info(" %s", __func__); > >>> + > >>> + do { > >>> + /* TODO: this is only because rfkill sub-system > >>> + * doesn't send events to user-space if the state > >>> + * isn't changed > >>> + */ > >>> + rfkill_set_hw_state(kim_gdata->rfkill[ST_BT], 1); > >>> + /* Configure BT nShutdown to HIGH state */ > >>> + gpio_set_value(kim_gdata->gpios[ST_BT], GPIO_LOW); > >>> + mdelay(5); /* FIXME: a proper toggle */ > >>> + gpio_set_value(kim_gdata->gpios[ST_BT], GPIO_HIGH); > >>> + mdelay(100); > >> > >> You can sleep here instead (below you wait for completion). 100 ms of > >> busy waiting is way too much. > > > > It's agreed upon from the process, since it is in a process context. > > Like's a device's open or hci0's UP. > > Dunno if you got me right. I meant mdelay->msleep. > > regards, > -- > js _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
