Jean,
I'll comment your mail first and then send separate patches (somehow
I can't sleep this night :))
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:29:08PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > * Move NULL argument checking from get/set date functions to
> > ds1337_command function, so it is only at one place. Note that other
> > drivers do not this checking at all and I think it is pointess,
> > because you have to know that you are passing struct rtc_time
> > anyway.
>
> I am not certain these are the right things to do (moving the check or
> removing it). I am not a specialist of ioctl, but it looks to me that
> ds1337_command acts as a dispatcher, branching to various functions
> depending on the value of cmd. I can imagine that some functions take an
> argument, and some don't, so checking for NULL pointer in the dispatcher
> doesn't make much sense. Now it is correct that for now all (two)
> functions need a parameter, but what if later a function is added, which
> takes no parameter? You'd have to undo your change and move the check in
> each function again.
>
> As for the check itself, the pointer somehow comes from user-space as I
> understand it, so you can't tell whether it's NULL or not - so checking
> makes full sense to me. If you take a look at the rtc8564 driver you'll
> see it *does* check for NULL pointers too.
You can't tell if memory it points to is valid. Okay, probably better
than nothing.
> > @@ -95,60 +96,38 @@
> > */
> > static int ds1337_get_datetime(struct i2c_client *client, struct
> > rtc_time *dt) {
> > - struct ds1337_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > - int result;
> > - u8 buf[7];
> > - u8 val;
> > - struct i2c_msg msg[2];
> > - u8 offs = 0;
> > -
> > - if (!dt) {
> > - dev_dbg(&client->adapter->dev, "%s: EINVAL: dt=NULL\n",
> > - __FUNCTION__);
> > -
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - }
> > -
> > - msg[0].addr = client->addr;
> > - msg[0].flags = 0;
> > - msg[0].len = 1;
> > - msg[0].buf = &offs;
> > -
> > - msg[1].addr = client->addr;
> > - msg[1].flags = I2C_M_RD;
> > - msg[1].len = sizeof(buf);
> > - msg[1].buf = &buf[0];
> > + unsigned char buf[7] = { 0, }, addr[1] = { 0 };
> > + struct i2c_msg msgs[2] = {
> > + { client->addr, 0, 1, addr },
> > + { client->addr, I2C_M_RD, 7, buf }
> > + };
> > + int result = i2c_transfer(client->adapter, msgs, 2);
> >
> > - result = client->adapter->algo->master_xfer(client->adapter,
> > - &msg[0], 2);
>
> You are doing much more than just using i2c_transfer instead of
> master_xfer. You are also rewriting the way the message data is
> initialized. I see no reason to do that, as the previous code was
> correct as far as I can see.
Right, I just made it shorter. One more point for you, my way is not
struct i2c_msg change proof. I'll drop it.
> > - if (result >= 0) {
> (...)
> > + if (result < 0) {
>
> By changing this you are making your patch much bigger and harder to
> review. Why do you do that?
Here you need to look at patched code. Now conditions in both
ds1337_get_datetime and ds1337_set_datetime look similar, so code is
IHMO easily readable. I'm fine with droping this change.
> > - val = buf[2] & 0x3f;
> > - dt->tm_hour = BCD_TO_BIN(val);
> (...)
> > + dt->tm_hour = BCD2BIN(buf[2] & 0x3f);
>
> No, James is correct. BCD2BIN (or BCD_TO_BIN for that matter) is a
> macro which evaluates its argument more than once. Using a temporary
> variable makes sense.
Agree.
> > + unsigned char buf[8];
> > int result;
> > - u8 buf[8];
>
> Wow, what a useful change. Please please please... Focus on making your
> patch compact, have it do just the thing it is supposed (and advertised)
> to do. You know, I'll repeat it until you get it. No matter how many
> tries it takes.
Save your time I got it. buf is supposed to be char, that's what function
expects. I wrongly made it unsigned. u8, u16 etc. are used in case
when you for example need to generate say 8 bit bus access or need same
width on all architectures. Neither is case here and using u8 makes no
sense. Anyway, will drop change.
> > if (dt->tm_year >= 2000) {
> > - val = dt->tm_year - 2000;
> > buf[6] |= (1 << 7);
> > - } else {
> > - val = dt->tm_year - 1900;
> > - }
> > - buf[7] = BIN_TO_BCD(val);
> > + buf[7] = BIN2BCD(dt->tm_year - 2000);
> > + } else
> > + buf[7] = BIN2BCD(dt->tm_year - 1900);
>
> Same as before, the use of a temporary variable makes full sense, don't
> change that. And you're again adding noise by dropping a pair of curly
> braces.
That's only because I read mail by jgarzik suggesting to remove such
braces few hours ago :) Also, i'll drop this change.
Best regards,
ladis
