On 9/10/07, Adrian McMenamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/09/2007, Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Adrian, > > > > Thanks for the comments - will get on with this but.... > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < NR_SCANCODES; i++) > > > + kbd->keycode[i] = dc_kbd_keycode[i]; > > > > memcpy? > > > > I see that other drivers use memcpy - and will happily convert over - > but, out of interest, is there a reasopn why it is superior? >
First and foremost it conveys the intent clearly - you are copying a chunk of memory (namely a keymap) from one place to another - thus memcpy. Plus it may produce smaller/faster code (but since it is not a hot path this does not matter much). > > > > maple_device appears to be fully integrated in sysfs, please add: > > kbd->dev->dev.parent = &dev->dev; > > > > The bus code already correctly ids the parent device (the above code > would appear to assign the device as the device's parent > incidentally). Is it wrong to make that assignment in the central bus > code as opposed to the driver? > Here I want to set up sysfs relation for the newly created struct input_dev which is a child of struct maple_dev. The central bus (maple) code has no idea of input device existence, hasn't it? IOW we need: input_dev->dev.parent = &maple_dev->dev; -- Dmitry - 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/