Greg,
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 05:10:47AM +0400, Eugeny S. Mints wrote:
[snip]
>> +struct powerop_point {
>> + struct kobject kobj; /* hook to reference an operating point in
>> + * some arch independent way
>> + */
>
> What do you do with this kobject? It looks as if you only use the name
> portion of it, which seems like a big waste of memory for a whole
> kobject.
>
> It's also the first time I've seen a struct kobject abused this way :)
>
it is a shim for sysfs interface which is now implemented in the next take of
the patchset.
>> +static void *
>> +create_point(const char *pwr_params, va_list args)
>
> Return types on the same line please.
I ran lindent script and now return types locate in the same line. Personally
I'd prefer to have it as I put it since such type of coding allows to search a
function _implementation_ much simpler by "grep ^function_name" and to
distinguish implementation from function declaration/forward declaration/calls
and similar function names. Isn't it a purpose of coding style among others?
[snip]
>> +struct powerop_driver {
>> + char *name;
>> + void *(*create_point)(const char *pwr_params, va_list args);
>> + int (*set_point)(void *md_opt);
>> + int (*get_point)(void *md_opt, const char *pwr_params, va_list args);
>> +};
>
> Module owner perhaps too? You need to handle these drivers in modules
> properly with the correct usage counting.
Current design assumes only one powerop driver in the system and powerop core
checks pointers to the routines against NULL value before every call. PowerOP
core does not share any data with powerop driver so I don't see the reason to lock
powerop driver in this case.
Eugeny
>> +
>> +int powerop_driver_register(struct powerop_driver *p);
>> +void powerop_driver_unregister(struct powerop_driver *p);
>> +
>> +/* Main PowerOP Core interface */
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * powerop_register_point - add new operating point with a given name to
>> + * operating points list. A caller passes power parameters for new operating
>> + * points as pairs of name/value and passes only those parameter names the
>> + * caller is interested in. PowerOP Core calls powerop driver to initialize
>> + * arch dependent part of new operating point and links new named operating
>> + * point to the list maintained by PowerOP Core
>> + *
>> + *
>> + * INPUT
>> + * id - operating point name
>> + * pwr_params - set of (power parameter name, value) pairs
>> + *
>> + * OUTPUT
>> + * none
>> + *
>> + * RETURN
>> + * zero on success, error code otherwise
>> + *
>> + */
>> +int powerop_register_point(const char *id, const char *pwr_params, ...);
>
> Again with the wierd documentation style. Also, this does not belong in
> a .h file, kerneldoc can be generated from the .c files. Please do it
> that way instead of duplicating it twice.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
