[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BC1405.8010207@pengutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 21:13:57 +0100
From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>
CC: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Linux-CAN <linux-can@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] can: kvaser_usb: Add support for the Usbcan-II
family
On 01/18/2015 09:12 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:53:02PM +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 03:36:12PM -0500, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>>> From: Ahmed S. Darwish <ahmed.darwish@...eo.com>
>>>
>
> ...
>
>>> @@ -98,7 +128,13 @@
>>> #define CMD_START_CHIP_REPLY 27
>>> #define CMD_STOP_CHIP 28
>>> #define CMD_STOP_CHIP_REPLY 29
>>> -#define CMD_GET_CARD_INFO2 32
>>> +#define CMD_READ_CLOCK 30
>>> +#define CMD_READ_CLOCK_REPLY 31
>>
>> These two defines are not used.
>>
>
> They were added for completeness: the only gap in our continuous
> sequence of command IDs from 12 to 39 ;-) No big deal, to be
> removed in the next submission.
>
> ...
>
>>> +
>>> +struct kvaser_msg_tx_acknowledge_header {
>>> + u8 channel;
>>> + u8 tid;
>>> +};
>>
>> Is this struct really needed? Can't you simply use
>> leaf_msg_tx_acknowledge or usbcan_msg_tx_acknowledge
>> structures to read the header.
>> Same for kvaser_msg_rx_can_header.
>>
>
> They're added to ensure type-safety throughout the code. Basically
> they're the common part of a command that has different wire format
> between the Leaf and the USBCan, but share a common header. Such
> notation was only added when it was strictly necessary.
>
> For example, there are three functions where 'rx_can_header' is
> referenced in the driver, and one function where 'tx_acknowledge_header'
> is referenced. Without such header structure, I'll have to sprinkle
> 3 to 4 extra blocks of:
>
> switch (dev->family) {
> case KVASER_LEAF:
> case KVASER_USBCAN:
> }
>
> which would be _really_ ugly. The *_header notation ensures that, in
> the body of each function, we're accessing the fields in a very safe
> manner.
+1 Keep it as it is.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists