From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933305Ab2K0J3U (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:29:20 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:49426 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933031Ab2K0J3S (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:29:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:29:13 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Christopher Heiny Cc: Linus Walleij , Jean Delvare , Linux Kernel , Linux Input , Allie Xiong , Vivian Ly , Daniel Rosenberg , Alexandra Chin , Joerie de Gram , Wolfram Sang , Mathieu Poirier , Naveen Kumar Gaddipati Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 05/06] input/rmi4: F01 - device control Message-ID: <20121127092913.GC25658@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1353124734-16803-1-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com> <1353124734-16803-6-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com> <20121126094018.GC13792@core.coreip.homeip.net> <50B3EDBF.3030209@synaptics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50B3EDBF.3030209@synaptics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:31:27PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: > On 11/26/2012 01:40 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >Hi Christopher, > > > >On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:58:53PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: > >>RMI Function 01 implements basic device control and power management > >>behaviors for the RMI4 sensor. > >> > >>rmi_f01.h exports definitions that we expect to be used by other functionality > >>in the future (such as firmware reflash). > > > >Please see my comments below. > > Hi Dmitry, > > Thanks for the feedback and the patch. I've got just one question, > included below, with a bunch of snipping). > > Chris > > > > >> > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny > >> > >>Cc: Dmitry Torokhov > >>Cc: Linus Walleij > >>Cc: Naveen Kumar Gaddipati > >>Cc: Joeri de Gram > >> > >> > >>--- > >> > >> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c | 1348 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.h | 160 +++++ > >> 2 files changed, 1508 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c > >>new file mode 100644 > >>index 0000000..038266c > >>--- /dev/null > >>+++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c > >>@@ -0,0 +1,1348 @@ > >>+/* > >>+ * Copyright (c) 2011-2012 Synaptics Incorporated > >>+ * Copyright (c) 2011 Unixphere > >>+ * > >>+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > >>+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > >>+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > >>+ * (at your option) any later version. > > [snip] > > >>+/** > >>+ * @reset - set this bit to force a firmware reset of the sensor. > >>+ */ > >>+struct f01_device_commands { > >>+ bool reset:1; > >>+ u8 reserved:7; > > > >When specifying bitwise fields please use u8, u16, etc only. > > Um, OK. Previously patch feedback suggested to use bool instead of > u8 for single bit fields (see here: > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg22198.html). So I'm a > little confused. It's no big deal to change it back, but I'd like > confirmation that it is really what we should do. I believe that it is better to specify exact bitness of the base type of the bitfield so you do not surprised by the alignment. Thanks. -- Dmitry