On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:37:51AM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote: > On 04/11/11 20:00, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 08:55:14PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > >> A few random remarks follow. Ie, things that came up while quickly > >> scanning this. > >> > >> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 17:33 +0000, Martyn Welch wrote: > >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig > >>> index ca5ba89..99f5414 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig > >>> @@ -6,3 +6,13 @@ config VME_USER > >>> If you say Y here you want to be able to access a limited number of > >>> VME windows in a manner at least semi-compatible with the interface > >>> provided with the original driver at http://vmelinux.org/. > >> > >> Blank line here. > >> > >>> +config VME_PIO2 > >>> + tristate "GE PIO2 VME" > >>> + help > >>> + If you say Y here you have a GE PIO2. The PIO2 is a 6U VME Card, > >> > >> Maybe something like: "Say Y here if you have a GE PIO2."? > >> > >>> + implementing 32 solid-state relay switched IO lines, in 4 groups of 8. > >>> + The IO lines are provided as input, output or both as a build time > >>> + option. > >> > >> What option would that be? > >> > >>> + Otherwise it is safe to say N here. > >>> + > >> > >> A lot of modules have the "if you say M here the module will be called" > >> boilerplate here (which actually doesn't match the line I just made up). > >> > >>> +/* These are required for each board */ > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bus, "Enumeration of VMEbus to which the board is connected"); > >>> +module_param_array(bus, int, &bus_num, 0); > >>> + > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(base, "Base VME address for PIO2 Registers"); > >>> +module_param_array(base, long, &base_num, 0); > >>> + > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(vector, "VME IRQ Vector (Lower 4 bits masked)"); > >>> +module_param_array(vector, int, &vector_num, 0); > >>> + > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(level, "VME IRQ Level"); > >>> +module_param_array(level, int, &level_num, 0); > >>> + > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(variant, "Last 4 characters of PIO2 board variant"); > >>> +module_param_array(variant, charp, &variant_num, 0); > >>> + > >>> +/* This is for debugging */ > >>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(loopback, "Enable loopback mode on all cards"); > >>> +module_param(loopback, bool, 0); > >> > >> All module parameters have a sysfs visibility (or permission) of zero. > >> Why is that? (This might very well be a naive question. But I often > >> wonder why a certain parameter's permission isn't at least 400, just to > >> allow a quick check of that parameter.) Are arrays tricky in sysfs? > > > > Yes, arrays are tricky, and in the end, all of these need to be "real" > > sysfs files, not module parameters, but for now, it's ok to leave it as > > is until the code is cleaned up. > > > > Hi Greg, > > Am I right in thinking we wouldn't then be able to pass the parameters in the > boot args? If they are sysfs files and not module paramaters, then, no, you wouldn't. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
