linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver

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]

Date:	Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:49:07 +0100
From:	"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss@...nmann.de>
To:	"'balbi@...com'" <balbi@...com>
CC:	"'linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'ben-linux@...ff.org'" <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	"'khali@...ux-fr.org'" <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	"'nicolas.ferre@...el.com'" <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	"'rmallon@...il.com'" <rmallon@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 2/4] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: add new driver

> > > > +#include <mach/at91_twi.h>
> > > > +#include <mach/board.h>
> > > > +#include <mach/cpu.h>
> > >
> > > avoid including <mach/*> on drivers.
> >
> > Should I move at91_twi.h to include/linux (omap does it like this,
> > other use the mach-include)?
> 
> maybe, is at91_twi.h some sort of platform_data ? there's
> <linux/platform_data/...> for that.

It contains hardware register definitions, not really platform data.
So linux/i2c-at91.h (like linux/i2c-{omap,pxe,...}) would be the right place?


> 
> > > > +	if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_TXCOMP) {
> > > > +		at91_disable_twi_interrupts(dev);
> > > > +		dev->transfer_status = status;
> > > > +		complete(&dev->cmd_complete);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	else if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_RXRDY) {
> > > > +		at91_twi_read_next_byte(dev);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	else if (irqstatus & AT91_TWI_TXRDY) {
> > > > +		at91_twi_write_next_byte(dev);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	else {
> > > > +		return IRQ_NONE;
> > >
> > > coding style is wrong. Also, are those IRQ events really mutually
> exclusive ??
> >
> > These are indeed mutually exclusive (semantically).
> 
> so you couldn't have AT91_TWI_TXCOMP and AT91_TWI_RXRDY set when you read
> irqstatus ?

Yes, I do have this, but in this constellation only TXCOMP is relevant and
all other flags can be ignored (because the transfer is finished).

Niko

--
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/