Hi Maciej, On Fri, 9 May 2008 00:10:47 +0100 (BST), Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > I'm not going to tell how bad I think the GNU coding standards are, the > > point here is that we don't follow them at all, so whatever they say is > > totally irrelevant. Read Documentation/CodingStyle, it describes what > > Oh come on -- that's just common sense. If something is good, there is > no point in discarding it without thinking, just because it is a part of a > bigger entity that we consider bad. I consider it good not because it is > a part of the GNU standard, but because I have concluded that it is and it > is pure coincidence ;-) I have taken it from the said standard. Let me just quote you: "This is mostly habitual -- this is what the GNU Coding Standard specifies for comments and which is enforced for GNU software which I have dealt a lot with." You didn't say it was common sense. You did say that it was what the GNU Coding Standard specified, and as a consequence, what you were used to. So please keep your "oh come on" for yourself, you pointed the discussion in this direction yourself. > But as I > said, this is a minor nit here and I can resist from adding extraneous > spaces in pieces of code you are interested in as long as I am able to > track which ones they actually are. What matters is not "the pieces of code I am interested in", but the pieces of code _you_ are the master of, or not. As explained somewhere else in this thread, you are free to use whatever style you like (as long as it complies with Documentation/CodingStyle, that is) in new code you write and in code you maintain. For all the rest, you should stick to the surrounding style. This is common sense, as you'd say. > (...) > Well, arch/mips/sibyte/swarm/ is included for all the three above as well > as a couple of other I may not necessarily be sure what they are even. So > this should be of no concern. > > BTW, do you mean i2c_add_numbered_adapter() will fail if no devices have > been declared to exist on the given bus with i2c_register_board_info()? > That sounds strange... i2c_add_numbered_adapter() _may_ fail if no I2C devices have been declared _and_ other i2c adapters are registered using i2c_add_adapter(). When you declare I2C devices, i2c-core reserves the bus numbers in question for i2c_add_numbered_adapter() and they cannot be used for i2c_add_adapter(). This is what guarantees that the calls to i2c_add_numbered_adapter() (in i2c-sibyte for example) will succeed. If no I2C devices are declared, bus numbers are not reserved, so if it happens that another I2C bus driver registers itself before i2c-sibyte does, when i2c-sibyte calls i2c_add_numbered_adapter(), the bus number is already in use and the call fails. I admit that this is unlikely to happen, but depending on what exact hardware there is on the system and what drivers are built-in, it could happen. I think it is a weakness of i2c-core, it should allow platform code to reserve i2c bus numbers regardless of what devices are registered. I seem to remember I said that when the code was added to the kernel already. I guess we'll have to fix it the day it actually breaks. BTW, i2c-sibyte should be converted to a proper platform driver, so that only platforms with such a device instantiate it. > Note in all cases there are EEPROMs (onboard ones > as well as optionally SPD ones) on both buses on Broadcom/SiByte boards > and they are handled by a legacy client driver. The Broadcom SOC is > actually capable to bootstrap from one of these EEPROMs (rather than form > the usual system parallel Flash ROM). Which legacy driver, "eeprom"? You should probably look into David Brownell's at24c driver: http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/i2c/2008-April/003307.html If it gets enough attention and testing, it could go upstream quickly. -- Jean Delvare
