Jean Delvare wrote:
> Great, thanks for testing. Would you also feel like reviewing the code?
>
>
I grabbed the original message from the web interface. Some of the
longer lines were wrapped, I am not sure if that is a problem with the
original patch, or the web interface. An example is:
+ * Copyright 2006 Stefan Roese <sr at denx.de>, DENX Software
Engineering
Some comments:
+struct ad7414_data {
+ struct i2c_client client;
+ struct class_device *dev;
I this this should be struct device, not class_device.
+ struct mutex lock; /* atomic read data updates */
Line up?
+ char valid; /* !=0 if following fields are
valid */
+ unsigned long last_updated; /* In jiffies */
Line up?
+ u16 temp_input; /* Register values */
+ u8 temp_max;
+ u8 temp_min;
+ u8 temp_alert;
+ u8 temp_max_flag;
+ u8 temp_min_flag;
+};
Much codes goes by ;)
+static int ad7414_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
+{
+ struct ad7414_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
+
+ hwmon_device_unregister(data->dev);
+ sysfs_remove_group(&client->dev.kobj, &ad7414_group);
+ kfree(data);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static struct i2c_driver ad7414_driver = {
+ .driver = {
+ .name = "ad7414",
+ },
+ .probe = ad7414_probe,
+ .remove = __devexit_p(ad7414_remove),
+};
I believe the ad7414_remove function needs a _devexit to match the
__devexit_p. Other than that, the code looks clean.
Cheers,
Sean
