Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:07:48 -0700 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 8/17] input: RMI4 F09 Built-In Self Test | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Christopher Heiny <cheiny@synaptics.com> wrote:
Put in a verbose description of what this is.
(...) > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f09.c
> +/* data specific to fn $09 that needs to be kept around */ > +struct f09_query { > + u8 limit_register_count; > + union { > + struct { > + u8 result_register_count:3; > + u8 reserved:3; > + u8 internal_limits:1; > + u8 host_test_enable:1; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_query1; > + }; > +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_control { > + union { > + struct { > + u8 test1_limit_low:8; > + u8 test1_limit_high:8; > + u8 test1_limit_diff:8; > + }; > + u8 f09_control_test1[3]; > + }; > + union { > + struct { > + u8 test2_limit_low:8; > + u8 test2_limit_high:8; > + u8 test2_limit_diff:8; > + }; > + u8 f09_control_test2[3]; > + }; > +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_data { > + u8 test_number_control; > + u8 overall_bist_result; > + u8 test_result1; > + u8 test_result2; > + u8 transmitter_number; > + > + union { > + struct { > + u8 receiver_number:6; > + u8 limit_failure_code:2; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_data2; > + }; > +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
> +struct f09_cmd { > + union { > + struct { > + u8 run_bist:1; > + }; > + u8 f09_bist_cmd0; > + }; > +};
__attribute__((packed));
?
(...) > +static struct device_attribute attrs[] = { > + __ATTR(status, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_status_show, rmi_f09_status_store), > + __ATTR(limitRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_limit_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(hostTestEnable, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_host_test_enable_show, rmi_f09_host_test_enable_store), > + __ATTR(internalLimits, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_internal_limits_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(resultRegisterCount, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_result_register_count_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(overall_bist_result, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_overall_bist_result_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(test_number_control, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_number_control_show, > + rmi_f09_test_number_control_store), > + __ATTR(test_result1, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_result1_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(test_result2, RMI_RO_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_test_result2_show, rmi_store_error), > + __ATTR(run_bist, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_run_bist_show, rmi_f09_run_bist_store), > + __ATTR(f09_control_test1, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_control_test1_show, rmi_f09_control_test1_store), > + __ATTR(f09_control_test2, RMI_RW_ATTR, > + rmi_f09_control_test2_show, rmi_f09_control_test2_store), > +};
If this is *only* for tests, then for sure this should be in debugfs?
> +static int rmi_f09_alloc_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc) (...) > +static void rmi_f09_free_memory(struct rmi_function_container *fc)
Why do you need separate functions for these two?
If they are only used from one place (which I suspect) then just put the code at that site.
(...) > +static int rmi_f09_initialize(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = fc->rmi_dev; > + struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata; > + struct rmi_fn_09_data *f09 = fc->data; > + u16 query_base_addr; > + int rc; > + > + > + pdata = to_rmi_platform_data(rmi_dev); > + query_base_addr = fc->fd.query_base_addr; > + > + /* initial all default values for f09 query here */ > + rc = rmi_read_block(rmi_dev, query_base_addr, > + (u8 *)&f09->query, sizeof(f09->query)); > + if (rc < 0) { > + dev_err(&fc->dev, "Failed to read query register." > + " from 0x%04x\n", query_base_addr); > + return rc; > + } > + > + return 0; > +}
Similar here. Cannot this be brought into the only call site?
> +static int rmi_f09_config(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + /*we do nothing here. instead reset should notify the user.*/ > + return 0; > +}
Make it optional and just don't define it.
> +static int rmi_f09_reset(struct rmi_function_container *fc) > +{ > + struct rmi_fn_09_data *instance_data = fc->data; > + > + instance_data->status = -ECONNRESET; > + > + return 0; > +}
Dito.
(Already remarked this at the last patch.)
Yours, Linus Walleij
| |