From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754808Ab2H0WHw (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:07:52 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:63787 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754669Ab2H0WHu (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:07:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1345241877-16200-9-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com> References: <1345241877-16200-1-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com> <1345241877-16200-9-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:07:48 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/17] input: RMI4 F09 Built-In Self Test From: Linus Walleij To: Christopher Heiny Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Jean Delvare , Linux Kernel , Linux Input , Allie Xiong , William Manson , Peichen Chang , Joerie de Gram , Wolfram Sang , Mathieu Poirier , Linus Walleij , Naveen Kumar Gaddipati , Henrik Rydberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Christopher Heiny wrote: Put in a verbose description of what this is. (...) > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f09.c > +/* data specific to fn $09 that needs to be kept around */ > +struct f09_query { > + u8 limit_register_count; > + union { > + struct { > + u8 result_register_count:3; > + u8 reserved:3; > + u8 internal_limits:1; > + u8 host_test_enable:1; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_query1; > + }; > +}; __attribute__((packed)); ? > +struct f09_control { > + union { > + struct { > + u8 test1_limit_low:8; > + u8 test1_limit_high:8; > + u8 test1_limit_diff:8; > + }; > + u8 f09_control_test1[3]; > + }; > + union { > + struct { > + u8 test2_limit_low:8; > + u8 test2_limit_high:8; > + u8 test2_limit_diff:8; > + }; > + u8 f09_control_test2[3]; > + }; > +}; __attribute__((packed)); ? > +struct f09_data { > + u8 test_number_control; > + u8 overall_bist_result; > + u8 test_result1; > + u8 test_result2; > + u8 transmitter_number; > + > + union { > + struct { > + u8 receiver_number:6; > + u8 limit_failure_code:2; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_data2; > + }; > +}; __attribute__((packed)); ? > +struct f09_cmd { > + union { > + struct { > + u8 run_bist:1; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_cmd0; > + }; > +}; __attribute__((packed)); ? (...) > +static struct device_attribute attrs[] = { > + __ATTR(status, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_status_show, rmi_f09_status_store), > + __ATTR(limitRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_limit_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(hostTestEnable, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_host_test_enable_show, rmi_f09_host_test_enable_store), > + __ATTR(internalLimits, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_internal_limits_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(resultRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_result_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(overall_bist_result, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_overall_bist_result_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(test_number_control, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_number_control_show, > + rmi_f09_test_number_control_store), > + __ATTR(test_result1, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_result1_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(test_result2, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_result2_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(run_bist, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_run_bist_show, rmi_f09_run_bist_store), > + __ATTR(f09_control_test1, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_control_test1_show, rmi_f09_control_test1_store), > + __ATTR(f09_control_test2, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_control_test2_show, rmi_f09_control_test2_store), > +}; If this is *only* for tests, then for sure this should be in debugfs? > +static int rmi_f09_alloc_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc) (...) > +static void rmi_f09_free_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc) Why do you need separate functions for these two? If they are only used from one place (which I suspect) then just put the code at that site. (...) > +static int rmi_f09_initialize(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = fc->rmi_dev; > + struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata; > + struct rmi_fn_09_data *f09 = fc->data; > + u16 query_base_addr; > + int rc; > + > + > + pdata = to_rmi_platform_data(rmi_dev); > + query_base_addr = fc->fd.query_base_addr; > + > + /* initial all default values for f09 query here */ > + rc = rmi_read_block(rmi_dev, query_base_addr, > + (u8 *)&f09->query, sizeof(f09->query)); > + if (rc < 0) { > + dev_err(&fc->dev, "Failed to read query register." > + " from 0x%04x\n", query_base_addr); > + return rc; > + } > + > + return 0; > +} Similar here. Cannot this be brought into the only call site? > +static int rmi_f09_config(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + /*we do nothing here. instead reset should notify the user.*/ > + return 0; > +} Make it optional and just don't define it. > +static int rmi_f09_reset(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + struct rmi_fn_09_data *instance_data = fc->data; > + > + instance_data->status = -ECONNRESET; > + > + return 0; > +} Dito. (Already remarked this at the last patch.) Yours, Linus Walleij