linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Driver for GE PIO2 VME Card

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1320436514.14409.309.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
Date:	Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:55:14 +0100
From:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To:	Martyn Welch <martyn.welch@...com>
Cc:	gregkh@...e.de, Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, manohar.vanga@...n.ch, cota@...ap.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver for GE PIO2 VME Card

A few random remarks follow. Ie, things that came up while quickly
scanning this.

On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 17:33 +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
> index ca5ba89..99f5414 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
> @@ -6,3 +6,13 @@ config VME_USER
>  	  If you say Y here you want to be able to access a limited number of
>  	  VME windows in a manner at least semi-compatible with the interface
>  	  provided with the original driver at http://vmelinux.org/.

Blank line here.

> +config VME_PIO2
> +	tristate "GE PIO2 VME"
> +	help
> +	  If you say Y here you have a GE PIO2. The PIO2 is a 6U VME Card,

Maybe something like: "Say Y here if you have a GE PIO2."?

> +	  implementing 32 solid-state relay switched IO lines, in 4 groups of 8.
> +	  The IO lines are provided as input, output or both as a build time
> +	  option.

What option would that be?

> +	  Otherwise it is safe to say N here.
> +

A lot of modules have the "if you say M here the module will be called"
boilerplate here (which actually doesn't match the line I just made up).

> +/* These are required for each board */
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bus, "Enumeration of VMEbus to which the board is connected");
> +module_param_array(bus, int, &bus_num, 0);
> +
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(base, "Base VME address for PIO2 Registers");
> +module_param_array(base, long, &base_num, 0);
> +
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(vector, "VME IRQ Vector (Lower 4 bits masked)");
> +module_param_array(vector, int, &vector_num, 0);
> +
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(level, "VME IRQ Level");
> +module_param_array(level, int, &level_num, 0);
> +
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(variant, "Last 4 characters of PIO2 board variant");
> +module_param_array(variant, charp, &variant_num, 0);
> +
> +/* This is for debugging */
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(loopback, "Enable loopback mode on all cards");
> +module_param(loopback, bool, 0);

All module parameters have a sysfs visibility (or permission) of zero.
Why is that? (This might very well be a naive question. But I often
wonder why a certain parameter's permission isn't at least 400, just to
allow a quick check of that parameter.) Are arrays tricky in sysfs?

I can't remember ever having seen guidelines for this. It's possible
they exist and my question is answered after reading those.


Paul Bolle

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/