On 08/27/2012 03:07 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: [snip]
>+static struct device_attribute attrs[] = { >+ __ATTR(status, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_status_show, rmi_f09_status_store), >+ __ATTR(limitRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_limit_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(hostTestEnable, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_host_test_enable_show, rmi_f09_host_test_enable_store), >+ __ATTR(internalLimits, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_internal_limits_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(resultRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_result_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(overall_bist_result, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_overall_bist_result_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(test_number_control, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_test_number_control_show, >+ rmi_f09_test_number_control_store), >+ __ATTR(test_result1, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_test_result1_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(test_result2, RMI_RO_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_test_result2_show, rmi_store_error), >+ __ATTR(run_bist, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_run_bist_show, rmi_f09_run_bist_store), >+ __ATTR(f09_control_test1, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_control_test1_show, rmi_f09_control_test1_store), >+ __ATTR(f09_control_test2, RMI_RW_ATTR, >+ rmi_f09_control_test2_show, rmi_f09_control_test2_store), >+};If this is*only* for tests, then for sure this should be in debugfs?
F09 is used in the final product (for example, a phone or tablet) both on the production line and to diagnose failures in returned products. We can't be certain that the phone/tablet/whatever manufacturer will include debugfs in their production kernel, and if they don't they almost certainly won't want to install a different kernel on the production line to run a test, so we provided a sysfs interface to this.
>+static int rmi_f09_alloc_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)(...)>+static void rmi_f09_free_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)Why do you need separate functions for these two? If they are only used from one place (which I suspect) then just put the code at that site.
Some of the other modules have fairly large and complicated alloc_memory() and free_memory() implementations, so we adopted this as a general convention in all the RMI function implementations. But as you suggested elsewhere, using devm_kzalloc could tidy things up a lot, in which case the functions could be merged back into their callers.
[snip] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
