On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:31:27PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 01:40 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >Hi Christopher,
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:58:53PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> >>RMI Function 01 implements basic device control and power management
> >>behaviors for the RMI4 sensor.
> >>
> >>rmi_f01.h exports definitions that we expect to be used by other functionality
> >>in the future (such as firmware reflash).
> >
> >Please see my comments below.
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Thanks for the feedback and the patch. I've got just one question,
> included below, with a bunch of snipping).
>
> Chris
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Cc: Joeri de Gram <j.de.gram@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>
> >> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c | 1348 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.h | 160 +++++
> >> 2 files changed, 1508 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c
> >>new file mode 100644
> >>index 0000000..038266c
> >>--- /dev/null
> >>+++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,1348 @@
> >>+/*
> >>+ * Copyright (c) 2011-2012 Synaptics Incorporated
> >>+ * Copyright (c) 2011 Unixphere
> >>+ *
> >>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> >>+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> >>+ * (at your option) any later version.
>
> [snip]
>
> >>+/**
> >>+ * @reset - set this bit to force a firmware reset of the sensor.
> >>+ */
> >>+struct f01_device_commands {
> >>+ bool reset:1;
> >>+ u8 reserved:7;
> >
> >When specifying bitwise fields please use u8, u16, etc only.
>
> Um, OK. Previously patch feedback suggested to use bool instead of
> u8 for single bit fields (see here:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg22198.html). So I'm a
> little confused. It's no big deal to change it back, but I'd like
> confirmation that it is really what we should do.
I believe that it is better to specify exact bitness of the base type of
the bitfield so you do not surprised by the alignment.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
