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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:46:43 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com> CC: <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>, <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>, <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <gnurou@...il.com>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <broonie@...nel.org>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>, <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <swarren@...dia.com>, <treding@...dia.com>, Chaitanya Bandi <bandik@...dia.com>, Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com> Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH 2/6] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024 Hi Krzysztof, Thanks for review. I will fix most of your comment on my next patch. Answering to some of comment/query. On Friday 08 January 2016 07:05 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > ()2016-01-07 23:38 GMT+09:00 Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>: > + dev_err(dev, > + "FPS enable-input %u is not supported\n", > + pval); > Indentation of arguments does not seem equal here or maybe this is > just my email client. Have you run this through checkpatch? And > sparse? And coccicheck (that one definitely not because kbuild is > complaining)? I ran checkpatch before I sent. > + chip->rmap[i] = devm_regmap_init_i2c(chip->clients[i], > + (const struct regmap_config *)&max77620_regmap_config[i]); > Indentation looks weird here (or again this is my email client...). > The cast is even weirder?!? Why casting? There is some parameter difference for MAX77620 and MAX20024. I have only one structure for it and changing tun time so I have not define this structure as constant. Now API needs const type structure and hence casting it. However, I have define different structure for MAX77620 and MAX20024 which are const type and hence no need to explicitly casting here. This will be in my next patch. +static inline int max77620_reg_update(struct device *dev, int sid, + unsigned int reg, unsigned int mask, unsigned int val) +{ + struct max77620_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev); + + return regmap_update_bits(chip->rmap[sid], reg, mask, val); +} > I think all these shouldn't be static inlines in header. Although some > of them are one-liners but rest are not. Let the compiler decide what > to do with these wrappers. If I dont make inline from header then this will complain as unused static function on related C compilation if it is not used on C. This header included from all sub module driver and they are not using all these APIs. To avoid compilation warning, I need to use inline here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists