[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150714220607.GP30412@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:06:07 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, pantelis.antoniou@...sulko.com,
mporter@...sulko.com, stefan.wahren@...e.com, wxt@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/9] nvmem: Add nvmem_device based consumer apis.
On 07/10, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> +static int devm_nvmem_device_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *data)
> +{
> + struct nvmem_device **nvmem = res;
> +
> + if (!nvmem || !*nvmem) {
> + WARN_ON(!nvmem || !*nvmem);
This could be
if (WARN_ON(!nvmem || !*nvmem))
> + return 0;
> + }
> + return *nvmem == data;
> +}
> +
> [..]
> +
> +/**
> + * nvmem_device_write() - Write cell to a given nvmem device
> + *
> + * @nvmem: nvmem device to be written to.
> + * @offset: offset in nvmem device.
> + * @bytes: number of bytes to write.
> + * @buf: buffer to be written.
> + *
> + * The return value will be an length of bytes written or non zero on failure.
Should say negative value instead of non-zero? Length is
non-zero already.
General nitpick comment: Kernel-doc allows for a standard return
syntax.
Return: length of bytes written or negative value on failure.
> diff --git a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> index f589d3b..74eed42 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> @@ -12,15 +12,9 @@
> #ifndef _LINUX_NVMEM_PROVIDER_H
> #define _LINUX_NVMEM_PROVIDER_H
>
> -struct nvmem_device;
> +#include <linux/nvmem-consumer.h>
>
> -struct nvmem_cell_info {
> - const char *name;
> - int offset;
> - int bytes;
> - int bit_offset;
> - int nbits;
> -};
Why does this move from provider to consumer? Can't we do put
this struct in the right place from the beginning?
> +struct nvmem_device;
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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