[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <508725C1.5090401@synaptics.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:18:25 -0700
From: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Allie Xiong <axiong@...aptics.com>,
Vivian Ly <vly@...aptics.com>,
Daniel Rosenberg <daniel.rosenberg@...aptics.com>,
Joerie de Gram <j.de.gram@...il.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
Alexandra Chin <alexandra.chin@...synaptics.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/06] input/rmi4: Public header and documentation
On 10/11/2012 08:32 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@...aptics.com> wrote:
>> Linus Walleij wrote:
>
>>> But please use arithmetic operators (I think I said this on the last
>>> review):
>>>
>>> dest[0] = src & 0xFF;
>>> dest[1] = src >> 8;
>>>
>>> Doing it the above way makes artithmetic look like maths, and it isn't.
>>> Besides it's done this way in most parts of the kernel and we're
>>> familiar with it.
>>
>> Yes, you mentioned it previously. I'm somewhat paranoid, though, and
>> don't trust the shift/mask method to work correctly on big-endian
>> machines. If the shifts can be relied on to behave (I'm guessing the
>> answer is "yes", since you say this idiom is used widely in the
>> kernel), then I'll change it.
>
> If the behaviour was not consistent across different endianness
> it would not be part of the C language specification...
>
> << means shift left in the accumulator or whatever you have.
> It will work the same no matter how bits are laid out in
> memory.
OK, after reviewing the spec I'll accept that. We'll make the change.
>>>> +static inline ssize_t rmi_store_error(struct device *dev,
>>>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>>>> + const char *buf, size_t count)
>>>> +{
>>>> + dev_warn(dev,
>>>> + "WARNING: Attempt to write %d characters to read-only
>>>> attribute %s.", + count, attr->attr.name);
>>>> + return -EPERM;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Here it looks like you're hiding a lot of stuff that should be dev_warn()?
>>> Consider my earlier point about dynamic debug.
>>
>> In previous patch submissions, we always used these warning functions.
>> But in the feedback on those patches, we were asked to just make
>> sysfs show/store NULL if the attribute is write/read only. However,
>> during their development process, our customers want to see the
>> warnings if the attributes are accessed incorrectly. So we made
>> these warnings a debug option.
>
> See Dmitry's comment ...
>
> Basically my stance is that you should not lower yourself to the
> level of others not getting the point of your technical solution
> by making unelegant compromises, what
> you should do is to bring them up to your level so they
> understand that your solution is elegant.
>
> Maybe a bit utopist I know...
What's the old saying? "I want to live in Theory. Everything is always
so nice there..." :-)
Anyway, see my reply to Dmitry a bit ago. These are no longer needed,
so we'll drop them.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists