On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:07:21PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:14:46PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Tony Olech wrote: > > > > > > > Add a driver for Elan Digital System's VUB300 chip > > > > which is a USB connected SDIO/SDmem/MMC host controller. > > > > A VUB300 chip enables a USB 2.0 or USB 1.1 connected host > > > > computer to use SDIO/SD/MMC cards without the need for > > > > a directly connected, for example via PCI, SDIO host > > > > controller. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anthony F Olech <tony.olech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > This is the second submission attempt. > > > > There are 5 "do not initialise statics" errors reported by scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > > > you probably should fix those. They are due to lines such as: > > > > > > static int pad_input_to_usb_pkt = 0; > > > static int disable_offload_processing = 0; > > > static int force_1_bit_data_xfers = 0; > > > static int force_polling_for_irqs = 0; > > > > Should those be static anyhow? Being USB, you could probably hook up two of > > those and want to operate one of them in this and the other one in another > > mode? > > You could. Whether or not you would is another question. Until then I > don't think it is worth bothering with such corner cases for the initial > merging of this driver. A static variable which should be per-device is a corner-case? Frankly, I'd think it is a flaw. Unless, of course, these module_params are only rarely used. Which would lead to the question if they are really needed. There are quite a lot. Also, I am not convinced of the need of a custom sysfs-file. Seeing its use cases might help to identify a need which is probably better solved generically. Kind regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
