[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B3BB06.9010506@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 23:56:38 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: davicom: fix devicetree irq resource
On 02/04/2016 11:42 PM, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> Your patch summary prefixes are too verbose, it was enough to say only
>> "dm9000: ".
Or "davicom: dm9000: ". Missing the driver name itself doesn't look very
consistent. :-)
> Well, I don't agree here. The subsystem should be fully specified, at least this
> is something I require in pxa, something that is also required in sound/*, etc
> ... If David doesn't object, I'll keep it that way. As it's his tree, his
> decision in the end, so let's have him decide.
I expect that he disagrees with you. Let's wait...
>>> - /* If there is no IRQ type specified, default to something that
>>> - * may work, and tell the user that this is a problem */
>>> -
>>> - if (irqflags == IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE)
>>> - irqflags = irq_get_trigger_type(dev->irq);
>>> -
>>> - if (irqflags == IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE)
>>> + /* If there is no IRQ type specified, tell the user that this is a
>>> + * problem */
>>
>> The networking code formats comments this way:
>>
>> /* foo
>> * bar
>> */
> May I know where this is documented ?
Documentation/CodingStyle, chapter 8. Have you run your patch thru
scripts/checkpatch.pl?
> I'm asking because I didn't find it, because I parsed drivers/net/*.c files, and
> the standard kernel comment style was there, ie:
> /*
> * foo
> * bar
> */
But you didn't follow it as well?
> I was reusing the previous comment style,
Ah...
> but I will change it for the standard
> kernel style if you wish.
Yes, I think checkpatch.pl checks for that, --strict is forced for the
networking code.
>>> + ndev->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> + if (ndev->irq <= 0) {
>>
>> I don't recommend checking for 0 and returning early in this case --
>> you'll signal a probe success this way. Either ignore 0 or return -E<smth>
>> in this case. Unfortunately, platform_get_irq() is so sloppily coded now that it
>> *can* return 0 on error. :-(
I'll try looking into this issue once I get more free time...
> Ah we had that discussion not very long ago, didn't we ? :)
Yeah, I remembered that just after hitting <Send>. :-)
> And I think I'll reuse the "if (ndev->irq < 0) {" solution to be consistent with
> myself.
> Thanks for the review.
My pleasure. :-)
MBR, Sergei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists