> Hi Hans,
>
>
> 2010-12-16 ¿ÀÈÄ 4:27, Hans Verkuil ¾´ ±Û:
>> Thanks for the reminder, I missed this patch.
>>
>> Review comments are below.
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> +
>>> +/* MACRO */
>>> +#define e_check_w(fn, cat, byte, val, bitwidth) do { \
>>> + int ret; \
>>> + ret = (int)(fn); \
>>> + if ((ret) < 0) { \
>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "fail i2c WRITE [%s] - " \
>>> + "category:0x%02x, " \
>>> + "bytes:0x%02x, " \
>>> + "value:0x%02x\n", \
>>> + (bitwidth), \
>>> + (cat), (byte), (u32)val); \
>>> + return ret; \
>>> + } \
>>> +} while (0)
>>> +
>>> +#define e_check_r(fn, cat, byte, val, bitwidth) do { \
>>> + int ret; \
>>> + ret = (int)(fn); \
>>> + if ((ret) < 0) { \
>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "fail i2c READ [%s] - " \
>>> + "category:0x%02x, " \
>>> + "bytes:0x%02x, " \
>>> + "value:0x%02x\n", \
>>> + (bitwidth), \
>>> + (cat), (byte), (u32)(*val)); \
I would place this error in the m5mols_read_reg function itself rather
than in the macro.
>>> + return ret; \
>>> + } \
>>> +} while (0)
>>> +
>>> +#define REG_W_8(cat, byte, value) \
>>> + e_check_w(m5mols_write_reg(sd, M5MOLS_8BIT, cat, byte, value), \
>>> + cat, byte, value, "8bit")
>>> +#define REG_R_8(cat, byte, value) \
>>> + e_check_r(m5mols_read_reg(sd, M5MOLS_8BIT, cat, byte, value), \
>>> + cat, byte, value, "8bit")
>>> +
>>> +#define e_check_mode(fn, mode) do { \
>>> + int ret; \
>>> + ret = (int)(fn); \
>>> + if (ret < 0) { \
>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "Failed to %s mode\n", \
>>> + (mode)); \
>>> + return ret; \
>>> + } \
>>> +} while (0)
>>> +
>>> +#define mode_monitoring(sd) \
>>> + e_check_mode(m5mols_monitoring_mode(sd), "MONITORING")
>>> +#define mode_parameter(sd) \
>>> + e_check_mode(m5mols_parameter_mode(sd), "PARAMETER")
>>
>> All these #defines above can be replaced by static inline functions.
>> That the
>> better option since static inline functions are type-safe.
>>
> You're definitely right. So, I know that #defines must be used carefully,
> either.
> But, in this driver code, the macros to use ultimately like this(e.g.,
> REG_W_8(),
> REG_R_8(), mode_monitoring(), mode_parameter()), is never return any
> value.
> It return itself, if any error is sensed.
I actually missed that during my first review. Thanks for pointing that
out, but this is even more reason not to do it like this.
> Namely, it's a bulk of codes, not a function.
>
> IMHO, The reasons I made of this macro are 3 things.
>
> 1. It may not looks good to add 3 or 4 lines code for checking error
> return values.
But what is worse is that you hide the return in the macro. So what looks
like a simple function-like macro will in reality have the side-effect of
returning. It's much better to explicitly handle the error in the calling
function.
> 2. It can prevent to miss error-checking code. Just use macro, then be
> able to
> handle error check, and show the kernel msg about i2c error return, or
> anything
> errors.
You can add a __must_check attribute to the function that will force the
compiler to generate a warning if the return code isn't checked. Much
cleaner.
> 3. If this macro changes to function type, it need one more error checking
> codes
> in the functions using this macros. So, then, the driver operation
> flow is a
> litte mess-up.
Actually, I don't think the macros are needed at all. For reading and
writing you can just call m5mols_write/read_reg directly and check the
error. For the mode check you can make simple static inlines like:
bool is_monitoring_mode()
and
bool is_parameter_mode()
and use it like this:
if (!is_monitoring_mode())
return ...
The only place where you might want to do something fancy is if you have a
lot of reads and/or writes in a function. Then you can do something like
this:
static inline void my_write(int reg, int val, int *err)
{
if (*err)
return;
*err = i2c_read(...);
}
int err = 0;
my_write(0, 10, &err);
my_write(1, 11, &err);
my_write(2, 12, &err);
if (err)
return err;
(just hacked together, so ignore the poor syntax :-) ).
This allows you to do many reads and writes without having to check the
error code each time.
> Actually, to use static inline function for typesafing is right, I know.
> But, can you think one more time, plz?
> If I'm wrong after your thinking, I'll change this to inline functions.
>
> <snip>
Regards,
Hans
--
Hans Verkuil - video4linux developer - sponsored by Cisco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
