From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 17:48:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai, axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus driver In-Reply-To: <20110509153728.GA29762@kroah.com> References: <1304632783-8781-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <201105081647.22091.arnd@arndb.de> <201105081759.03032.arnd@arndb.de> <20110509153728.GA29762@kroah.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 2011/5/9 Greg KH : > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:33:43PM +0200, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: >> 2011/5/8 Arnd Bergmann : >> > On Sunday 08 May 2011 16:59:55 Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote: >> >> 2011/5/8 Arnd Bergmann : >> >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/bcma/TODO b/drivers/bcma/TODO >> >> >> >> new file mode 100644 >> >> >> >> index 0000000..45eadc9 >> >> >> >> --- /dev/null >> >> >> >> +++ b/drivers/bcma/TODO >> >> >> >> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ >> >> >> >> +- Interrupts >> >> >> >> +- Defines for PCI core driver >> >> >> >> +- Convert bcma_bus->cores into linked list >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The last item doesn't make sense to me. Since you are using the regular >> >> >> > driver model, you can simply iterate over all child devices of any >> >> >> > dev. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's about optimization. Right now bcma_bus->cores is static array, we >> >> >> probably never will use all entries. >> >> > >> >> > Oh, I see. You should probably have neither of them. Instead allocate >> >> > the devices dynamically as you find them and do a device_register, >> >> > which will add the device into linked list. >> >> >> >> As I said, and wrote: TODO. >> > >> > Well, I think getting this part right is essential before the >> > patch can get merged. >> > >> >> > Maybe you didn't understand what I said: This should be >> >> > >> >> > struct bcma_device { >> >> > ? ? struct bcma_bus *bus; >> >> > ? ? struct bcma_device_id id; >> >> > ? ? struct device dev; >> >> > ? ? u8 core_index; >> >> > >> >> > ? ? u32 addr; >> >> > ? ? u32 wrap; >> >> > >> >> > ? ? void *drvdata; >> >> > }; >> >> > >> >> > Here, bcma_device is the device, no need to follow pointers >> >> > around. It's how all bus_types work, you should just do the same. >> >> >> >> We can not use static "struct device", see Greg's comments in: >> >> [RFC][PATCH V3] axi: add AXI bus driver >> >> (not to mention we would have unused "struct device" in ChipCommon's >> >> and PCI's "struct bcma_device"). >> > >> > Please reread what Greg explained, it's actually the same as what >> > I said here: Don't make the device static (you already don't), >> > don't put the device structure as a member in the bus structure >> > (as discussed above). Make the device a member of bcma_device, >> > so you get proper reference counting for it, in the way that >> > Greg explained. >> >> Thanks for help & explaining! Unfortunately Greg didn't answer if my >> changed implementation is fine. I'll fix this! > > Greg didn't know that you changed it, or that you wanted review comments > on it. > > thanks, > > greg "please be specific when asking for review" k-h Ups :) I asked for opinion in: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:52:55 +0200 Message-Id: <1302634375-2378-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> > Greg: is this what you expected from dynamic allocation and documentation? But it was hidden in commit comment and there were so many e-mails, it was probably easy to do not notice it. -- Rafa?