Hi,
From: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Ashwin Chaugule Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 10:24 AM
Hi Lv,
On 4 September 2014 21:56, Zheng, Lv lv.zheng@intel.com wrote:
spin_lock_irqsave(&chan->lock, flags);chan->msg_free = 0;chan->msg_count = 0;chan->active_req = NULL;chan->cl = cl;init_completion(&chan->tx_complete);if (chan->txdone_method == TXDONE_BY_POLL && cl->knows_txdone)The tab should be a space here?
Not sure where you're seeing the tab.
It is a tab here after " txdone_method".
+static bool pcc_tx_done(struct mbox_chan *chan) +{
struct acpi_pcct_subspace *pcct_ss = chan->con_priv;struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *generic_comm_base =(struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *) pcct_ss->base_address;u16 cmd_delay = pcct_ss->min_turnaround_time;Should these parameters be acquired with chan-lock held? Is that possible to change them during runtime?
No. These parameters don't change.
OK. Then that's up to you. :-)
+/* Channel lock is already held by mbox controller code. */ +static int pcc_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data) +{
struct acpi_pcct_subspace *pcct_ss = chan->con_priv;struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *generic_comm_base =(struct acpi_pcct_shared_memory *) pcct_ss->base_address;Ditto.
Same as above.
+out_err:
return ACPI_SUCCESS(status) ? 1 : 0;Should the return value of 1 here be -EINVAL?
I dont think it really matters, the caller returns -EINVAL anyway.
This is not a "bool" return value or "reversed bool" return value. Why not use errno for all "int" return value across all initialization/finalization functions? And in the caller, you can: + if (ret) { + pr_debug("ACPI PCC probe failed.\n"); + return ret; + } BTW, wasn't it better to return -ENODEV here?
Thanks -Lv
Thanks, Ashwin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html