On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 12:37 -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hello Tomi, Kevin,
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2011, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>
> > get_context_loss_count functions return context loss count as u32, and
> > zero means an error. However, zero is also returned when context has
> > never been lost and could also be returned when the context loss count
> > has wrapped and goes to zero.
> >
> > Change the functions to return an int, with negative value meaning an
> > error.
> >
> > OMAP HSMMC code uses omap_pm_get_dev_context_loss_count(), but as the
> > hsmmc code handles the returned value as an int, with negative value
> > meaning an error, this patch actually fixes hsmmc code also.
>
> Thanks, I agree this makes more sense than the previous arrangement.
>
> One minor comment:
<snip>
> > @@ -953,7 +953,13 @@ u32 pwrdm_get_context_loss_count(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
> > for (i = 0; i < pwrdm->banks; i++)
> > count += pwrdm->ret_mem_off_counter[i];
> >
> > - pr_debug("powerdomain: %s: context loss count = %u\n",
> > + /*
> > + * Context loss count has to be a non-negative value. Clear the sign
> > + * bit to get a value range from 0 to INT_MAX.
> > + */
> > + count &= ~(1 << 31);
>
> Could you use INT_MAX here? It seems best not to have the implicit
> dependency on 32-bit ints, if it is not too inconvenient.
Heh, Kevin made the same comment.
I didn't want to use INT_MAX because I feel INT_MAX is just a number,
not a mask. But as that's just a gut feeling, I'm fine with changing it
to INT_MAX.
Tomi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
