Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: adm1026 driver port for kernel 2.6.10-rc2 [RE-REVISED DRIVER] | Date | Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:43:27 -0800 | From | Justin Thiessen <> |
| |
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:13:56AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 10:56 -0800, Justin Thiessen wrote: > > MODULE_PARM(gpio_input,"1-17i"); > > new 2.6 drivers should NOT use MODULE_PARM, it's deprecated. > use module_param() instead
Ok. You mean module_param_array() in these particular cases, right?
> > int adm1026_attach_adapter(struct i2c_adapter *adapter) > > { > > if (!(adapter->class & I2C_CLASS_HWMON)) { > > return 0; > > } > > no need for extra { }'s in such a case
Of course there's no _need_. But I find the result stylistically easier to read. Is there any real objection?
> > static ssize_t show_in(struct device *dev, char *buf, int nr) > > { > > struct adm1026_data *data = adm1026_update_device(dev); > > return sprintf(buf,"%d\n", INS_FROM_REG(nr, data->in[nr])); > > } > > any chance you could make this use snprintf instead ?
I'll defer to Jean's response...
<snip awkward locking construct>
> this locking construct is rahter awkward; is it possible to refactor the > code such that you can down and up in the same function ?
Yes, at the cost of some minor code duplication or the introduction of another variable. Is that preferable? Is holding the lock across function calls a Bad Idea?
Justin Thiessen --------------- jthiessen@penguincomputing.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |