[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28cfe031-8883-3160-8658-084c2d4260c0@lechnology.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 17:34:07 -0600
From: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>, jic23@...nel.org
Cc: kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
a.fatoum@...gutronix.de, kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com,
gwendal@...omium.org, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, syednwaris@...il.com,
patrick.havelange@...ensium.com, fabrice.gasnier@...com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Introduce the Counter character device interface
On 12/25/20 6:15 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> Changes in v7:
> - Implemented u32 enums; enum types can now be used directly for
> callbacks and values
> - Fixed refcount underflow bug
> - Refactored all err check to check for err < 0; this should help
> prevent future oversights on valid positive return valids
> - Use mutex instead of raw_spin_lock in counter_chrdev_read();
> kifo_to_user() can now safely sleep
> - Renamed COUNTER_COMPONENT_DUMMY to COUNTER_COMPONENT_NONE to make
> purpose more obvious
> - Introduced a watch_validate() callback
> - Consolidated the functionality to clear the watches to the
> counter_clear_watches() function
> - Reimplemented counter_push_event() as a void function; on error,
> errno is returned via struct counter_event so that it can be handled
> by userspace (because interrupt handlers can't do much for this)
> - Renamed the events_config() callback to events_configure();
> "events_config" could be confused as a read callback when this is
> actually intended to configure the device for the requested events
> - Reimplemented 104-QUAD-8 driver to use events_configure() and
> watch_validate() callbacks; irq_trigger_enable sysfs attribute
> removed because events_configure() now serves this purpose
>
> The changes for this revision were much simpler compared to the previous
> revisions. I don't have any further questions for this patchset, so it's
> really just a search for possible bugs or regressions now. Please test
> and verify this patchset on your systems, and ACK appropriately.
>
I'll wait for the next round to give my Reviewed-By, Tested-By but I've
rebased my WIP TI eQEP changes[1] on this and I haven't ran into any
problems yet.
[1]: https://github.com/dlech/linux/commits/bone-counter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists