[RFC][PATCH 04/10] bcma: add mips driver

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

2011/6/6 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>:
> +/* driver_mips.c */
> +extern unsigned int bcma_core_mips_irq(struct bcma_device *dev);

Does it compile without CONFIG_BCMA_DRIVER_MIPS?


> +/* Get the MIPS IRQ assignment for a specified device.
> + * If unassigned, 0 is returned.
> + * If disabled, 5 is returned.
> + * If not supported, 6 is returned.
> + */

Does it ever return 6?


> +unsigned int bcma_core_mips_irq(struct bcma_device *dev)
> +{
> + ? ? ? struct bcma_device *mdev = dev->bus->drv_mips.core;
> + ? ? ? u32 irqflag;
> + ? ? ? unsigned int irq;
> +
> + ? ? ? irqflag = bcma_core_mips_irqflag(dev);
> +
> + ? ? ? for (irq = 1; irq <= 4; irq++)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (bcma_read32(mdev, BCMA_MIPS_MIPS74K_INTMASK(irq)) & (1 << irqflag))
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? break;

Use scripts/checkpatch*. Braces around "for" and split line to match
80 chars width.

Why don't you just use "return irq;" instead of break?


> +
> + ? ? ? if (irq == 5)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? irq = 0;
> +
> + ? ? ? return irq;

You can just make it "return 0;" after changing break to return.


> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? for (i = 0; i < bus->nr_cores; i++)
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((1 << bcma_core_mips_irqflag(&bus->cores[i])) == oldirqflag) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bcma_core_mips_set_irq(&bus->cores[i], 0);
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? break;
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }

Braces for "for".


> + ? ? ? pr_info("after irq reconfiguration\n");

Make first letter uppercase. I'm not English expert, but doesn't
something like "IRQ reconfiguration done" sound better?

-- 
Rafa?