Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:54:32 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
>
>
>
>>+struct mv64xxx_i2c_data {
>>+ void *reg_base;
>>
>>
>
>ioremap() returns "void __iomem *".
>
Okay.
>
>
>>+static void __devexit
>>+mv64xxx_i2c_unmap_regs(struct mv64xxx_i2c_data *drv_data)
>>+{
>>+ if (!drv_data->reg_base) {
>>+ iounmap(drv_data->reg_base);
>>
>>
>
>A typo? You're unmapping known to be invalid address.
>
Yes, a typo. Good catch.
>
>
>>+ drv_data->reg_base = 0;
>>
>>
>
>Use NULL because drv_data->reg_base is a pointer.
>
Done.
>
>
>>+ if ((pd->id == 0) && pdata) {
>>
>>
>
>Rewrite this as:
>
> if ((pd->id != 0) || !pdata)
> return -ENODEV;
>
>and save one level of indentation below.
>
Done.
>
>
> <snip of xxx_probe modifications>
Done.
>
> Alexey
>
>P. S.: struct mv64xxx_i2c_data revisited...
>
>
>
>>+ uint state;
>>+ ulong reg_base_p;
>>
>>
>
>Silly request, but... Maybe this should be changed to plain old "unsigned int"
>and "unsigned long". Please. I just don't understand why people use "uint",
>"u_int", "uInt", "UINT", "uINT", "uint_t" which are always typedef'ed to
>"unsigned int".
>
>
>
Thanks Alexey & Greg. How's this (a complete replacement for previous
patch)?
Signed-off-by: Mark A. Greer <mgreer at mvista.com>
--
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: i2c_5.patch
Url: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20050202/ec170bbe/attachment.pl
