linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/19] staging: comedi: adl_pci6208: document the register map of the device

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: <20120628190602.GM5333@mwanda>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:06:02 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, fmhess@...rs.sourceforge.net,
	abbotti@....co.uk, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] staging: comedi: adl_pci6208: document the
 register map of the device

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 02:56:43PM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> Add defines for the register map of the device. These will be
> used to clarify the code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>
> Cc: Ian Abbott <abbotti@....co.uk>
> Cc: Frank Mori Hess <fmhess@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci6208.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci6208.c b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci6208.c
> index f949d20..b6a8439 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci6208.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/drivers/adl_pci6208.c
> @@ -53,6 +53,18 @@ References:
>   */
>  #include "../comedidev.h"
>  
> +/*
> + * PCI-6208/6216-GL register map
> + */
> +#define PCI6208_AO_CONTROL(x)		(0x00 + (2 * (x)))
> +#define PCI6208_AO_STATUS		0x00
> +#define PCI6208_AO_STATUS_DATA_SEND	(1 << 0)
> +#define PCI6208_DIO			0x40
> +#define PCI6208_DIO_DO_MASK		(0x0f)
> +#define PCI6208_DIO_DO_SHIFT		(0)
> +#define PCI6208_DIO_DI_MASK		(0xf0)
> +#define PCI6208_DIO_DI_SHIFT		(4)

This series is nice and I'm not nacking anything, but really is it
that useful to say:
	status = inw(dev->iobase + PCI6208_AO_STATUS);
instead of just?:
	status = inw(dev->iobase);

I'm not sure what the 0x00 in PCI6208_AO_CONTROL represents.  Some
of these are not used like PCI6208_DIO_DI_SHIFT.

Does checkpatch.pl complain if you leave off these parenthesis?  If
so I will complain again to the checkpatch.pl people.  Extra
parenthesis are silly and there not used consistently.  Only
PCI6208_AO_CONTROL() and PCI6208_AO_STATUS_DATA_SEND() need
paranthesis.

Again, I'm fine with this patch and the whole series.  These are
just comments.

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/