On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:16:19PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 23:59 +0100, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 04/28/2014 10:uct attribute_group **attr_groups;
> > > @@ -114,10 +95,13 @@ struct vexpress_hwmon_type {
> > > static DEVICE_ATTR(in1_label, S_IRUGO, vexpress_hwmon_label_show, NULL);
> > > static SENSOR_DEVICE_ATTR(in1_input, S_IRUGO, vexpress_hwmon_u32_show,
> > > NULL, 1000);
> > > -static VEXPRESS_HWMON_ATTRS(volt, in1_label, in1_input);
> > > static struct attribute_group vexpress_hwmon_group_volt = {
> > > .is_visible = vexpress_hwmon_attr_is_visible,
> > > - .attrs = vexpress_hwmon_attrs_volt,
> > > + .attrs = (struct attribute *[]) {
> >
> > Is this typecast necessary ?
>
> Yes, it's the gcc extension that allows compound literals to be used for
> static structure members initialization. I like it, because it makes
> them easier to understand (in my opinion, that is), but if you prefer
> the classic approach, I'll unroll VEXPRESS_HWMON_ATTRS into:
>
> static struct attribute vexpress_hwmon_attrs_volt = {
> &dev_attr_in1_label.attr,
> &sensor_dev_attr_in1_input.dev_attr.attr,
> NULL
> };
>
> And keep
>
> static struct attribute_group vexpress_hwmon_group_volt = {
> .is_visible = vexpress_hwmon_attr_is_visible,
> .attrs = vexpress_hwmon_attrs_volt,
> };
>
Yes, would be great if you can do that.
> > > @@ -232,45 +227,19 @@ static int vexpress_hwmon_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > if (!match)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > > type = match->data;
> > > - data->name = type->name;
> > >
> > > data->reg = devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config(&pdev->dev);
> > > - if (!data->reg)
> > > - return -ENODEV;
> > > -
> > > - err = sysfs_create_groups(&pdev->dev.kobj, type->attr_groups);
> > > - if (err)
> > > - goto error;
> > > -
> > > - data->hwmon_dev = hwmon_device_register(&pdev->dev);
> > > - if (IS_ERR(data->hwmon_dev)) {
> > > - err = PTR_ERR(data->hwmon_dev);
> > > - goto error;
> > > - }
> > > + if (IS_ERR(data->reg))
> > > + return PTR_ERR(data->reg);
> >
> > Did the API for devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config change ?
> > If so, it might make sense to separate this out into a separate patch,
> > together with the API change (it is a logically different change).
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. The other patch from the series
The code above seems to change from
data->reg = devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config(&pdev->dev);
if (!data->reg)
return -ENODEV;
to
data->reg = devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config(&pdev->dev);
if (IS_ERR(data->reg))
return PTR_ERR(data->reg);
as part of this patch. This suggests that the return value from
devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config may have changed from NULL to
ERR_PTR. Is my understanding wrong ?
> I've copied you on
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/320577 "[PATCH
> 02/10] mfd: vexpress: Convert custom func API to regmap") changes
>
> - data->func = vexpress_config_func_get_by_dev(&pdev->dev);
>
> into
>
> + data->reg = devm_regmap_init_vexpress_config(&pdev->dev);
>
> Your ack there, by the way, will be really appreciated :-)
>
I'll have a look.
> > One question - I seem to be unable to apply the patch. What is your
> > baseline branch / repository ?
>
> The whole series, based on v3.15-rc3 lives here:
>
> git://git.linaro.org/people/pawel.moll/linux.git vexpress/sysreg
>
Great, thanks.
Guenter
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
