Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:48:55 -0600 Marc St-Jean > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [PATCH] drivers: PMC MSP71xx LED driver > > > > Patch to add LED driver for the PMC-Sierra MSP71xx devices. > > > > This patch references some platform support files previously > > submitted to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
Thanks for the feedback Andrew, I've implemented your recommendations. A few comments/answers below. [...] > > + /* determine the progress into the current cycle, relative to > the POLL_PERIOD */ > > + initialPeriod = (u8)(*ledRegPtr >> MSP_LED_INITIALPERIOD_SHIFT); > > + finalPeriod = (u8)(*ledRegPtr >> MSP_LED_FINALPERIOD_SHIFT); > > + ledTimeOut = (u8)(*ledRegPtr >> MSP_LED_WATCHDOG_SHIFT); > > + timer = (u8)(private_msp_led_register[ledId] >> > MSP_LED_WATCHDOG_SHIFT); > > I assume all these (u8) casts are unneeded. > > > + totalPeriod = (u16)initialPeriod + (u16)finalPeriod; > > And here. I assume the author didn't expect the integer promotion to occur until after the addition. [...] > > > +{ > > + int pin; > > + u8 currDirectionBits, currDataBits, prevDataBits, > prevDirectionBits; > > + currDirectionBits = currDataBits = prevDataBits = > prevDirectionBits = 0; > > The unneeded initialisations here are just to suppress the incorrect gcc > warning, yes? No, initialization is needed as they are passed by reference to functions setting/clearing bits. > If so, that should at least be comented. And try to avoid declarations o > this form as well as multiple assignments. So you want: > > u8 curr_direction_bits = 0; /* Suppress gcc warning */ > u8 curr_data_bits = 0; /* Suppress gcc warning */ > u8 prev_data_bits = 0; /* Suppress gcc warning */ > u8 prev_direction_bits = 0; /* Suppress gcc warning */ > > the initialisation does cause extra ode to be generated and we usually just > let te warning come out. I think later gcc's fixed it. OK, I've split them on to separate line but without the comment. [...] > > > +void __init pmctwiled_setup(void) > > +{ > > + static int called; > > + int dev; > > + > > + /* check if already initialized */ > > + if( called ) > > + return; > > This cannot happen (can it?) Yes it can happen. Platform code can call pmctwiled_setup (that's why the function was written) before the pmctwiled_init function runs. This is so various sub-system init functions can ensure initialization has occurred before setting start-up values. If you have an idea on a better way to accomplish this I'm all ears. > > + /* initialize LEDs to default state */ > > + for( dev = 0; dev < MSP_LED_NUM_DEVICES; dev++ ) { > > + int pin; > > + pmctwiled_device[dev] = NULL; > > + > > + for( pin = 0; pin < 8; pin++ ) { > > + int led = MSP_LED_DEVPIN(dev,pin); > > + if (mspLedInitialInputState[dev] & (1 << pin)) > { > > + msp_led_disable(led); > > + } else { > > + msp_led_enable(led); > > + if (mspLedInitialPinState[dev] & (1 << > pin)) > > > + msp_led_turn_on(led); > > > + else > > + msp_led_turn_off(led); > > + } > > + > > + /* Initialize the private led register memory */ > > + private_msp_led_register[led] = 0; > > + } > > + } > > + > > + /* indicate initialised */ > > + called++; > > +} [...] > > +typedef enum { > > + MSP_LED_INPUT = 0, > > + MSP_LED_OUTPUT, > > +} msp_led_direction_t; > > No typedefs, please. Convert this to > > enum msp_led_direction { > ... > }; Alright I'll change it but it wasn't mentioned in the review of the previous drivers and they've been resubmitted with some. A quick search shows several drivers typedef'ing enums with and without *_t suffixes. Is there a new style rule or are only core kernel types allowed to use _t? > > +/* Output modes */ > > +typedef enum { > > + MSP_LED_OFF = 0, /* Off steady */ > > + MSP_LED_ON, /* On steady */ > > + MSP_LED_BLINK, /* On for initialPeriod, off > for finalPeriod */ > > + MSP_LED_BLINK_INVERT, /* Off for initialPeriod, on for > finalPeriod */ > > +} msp_led_mode_t; > > Ditto. > > > +/* For non-LED pins, these macros set HI and LO accordingly */ > > +#define msp_led_pin_hi msp_led_turn_off > > +#define msp_led_pin_lo msp_led_turn_on > > eww. > > static inline wrapper functions are preferred. Write code in C, not cpp > where possible. I agree the wrappers are cleaner but don't understand how this relates to C++. Marc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/