On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:46:49PM +0530, ashishj3 wrote:
> +static int da9052_add_subdevs(struct da9052 *da9052)
> +{
> + struct da9052_pdata *pdata = da9052->dev->platform_data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + static struct mfd_cell __initdata da9052_subdev_info[] = {
> + {"da9052-onkey", .resources = &da9052_onkey_resource,
> + .num_resources = 1},
It seems a bit odd that this is embedded into the function?
> + {"da9052-gpio", .resources = NULL, .num_resources = 0},
No need to explicitly initialize static data to zero.
> +int da9052_device_init(struct da9052 *da9052)
> +{
> + struct da9052_pdata *pdata = da9052->dev->platform_data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + mutex_init(&da9052->io_lock);
> + mutex_init(&da9052->auxadc_lock);
> + pdata->init(da9052);
This will crash if no init() function is provided which seems wrong,
especially when I'd expect people wouldn't have any need to use such a
callback normally.
> +
> + ret = da9052_add_subdevs(da9052);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + ret = da9052_irq_init(da9052, pdata);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
This doesn't remove things it added when it failed.
> + for (raddr = reg ; raddr < reg + bytes; raddr++) {
> + raddr = (raddr << 1);
> +
> + spi_message_init(&message);
> + memset(&xfer, 0, sizeof(xfer));
> +
> + xfer.len = 2;
> + xfer.tx_buf = da9052->spi_tx_buf;
> + xfer.rx_buf = da9052->spi_rx_buf;
> +
> + da9052->spi_tx_buf[0] = raddr;
> + da9052->spi_tx_buf[1] = *val++;
> +
> + spi_message_add_tail(&xfer, &message);
> +
> + spi_sync(da9052->spi_dev, &message);
> + }
This looks like an open coded spi_write().
> + for (raddr = reg ; raddr < reg + bytes; raddr++) {
> + reg = ((raddr << 1) | da9052->rw_pol);
> +
> + spi_message_init(&message);
> + memset(&xfer, 0, sizeof(xfer));
> +
> + xfer.len = 2;
> + xfer.tx_buf = da9052->spi_tx_buf;
> + xfer.rx_buf = da9052->spi_rx_buf;
> +
> + da9052->spi_tx_buf[0] = raddr;
> + da9052->spi_tx_buf[1] = 0xff;
> +
> + da9052->spi_rx_buf[0] = 0;
> + da9052->spi_rx_buf[1] = 0;
> +
> + spi_message_add_tail(&xfer, &message);
> +
> + ret = spi_sync(da9052->spi_dev, &message);
> +
> + if (ret == 0) {
> + *val = da9052->spi_rx_buf[1];
> + val++;
> + return 0;
> + }
This looks like an open coded spi_write_then_read(), or even better
spi_w8r8().
> + da9052_spi->spi_tx_buf = kmalloc(2, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA);
> + if (!da9052_spi->spi_tx_buf) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_spi_rx_buf;
> + }
It would be better to just allocate the array as part of the structure,
a separate allocation just uses more memory for both the pointer and the
blocks that are used for the allocation.
> +static struct spi_driver da9052_spi_driver = {
> + .probe = da9052_spi_probe,
> + .remove = __devexit_p(da9052_spi_remove),
> + . driver = {
> + .name = "da9052_spi",
Why the _spi?
> index 0000000..c005a28
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/mfd/da9052/da9052.h
> +static const int32_t tbat_lookup[255] = {
This shouldn't be in a header file. If it needs to be shared between
multiple modules define it in one place and add the prototype in the
header file.
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
