From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org (Srinivas Kandagatla) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:21:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7 3/9] nvmem: Add nvmem_device based consumer apis. In-Reply-To: <20150714220607.GP30412@codeaurora.org> References: <1436521427-10568-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1436521505-10779-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <20150714220607.GP30412@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <55A617FF.2030904@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Thanks Stephen, On 14/07/15 23:06, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 07/10, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: >> +static int devm_nvmem_device_match(struct device *dev, void *res, void *data) >> +{ >> + struct nvmem_device **nvmem = res; >> + >> + if (!nvmem || !*nvmem) { >> + WARN_ON(!nvmem || !*nvmem); > > This could be > > if (WARN_ON(!nvmem || !*nvmem)) > Yep, will fix it. >> + return 0; >> + } >> + return *nvmem == data; >> +} >> + >> [..] >> + >> +/** >> + * nvmem_device_write() - Write cell to a given nvmem device >> + * >> + * @nvmem: nvmem device to be written to. >> + * @offset: offset in nvmem device. >> + * @bytes: number of bytes to write. >> + * @buf: buffer to be written. >> + * >> + * The return value will be an length of bytes written or non zero on failure. > > Should say negative value instead of non-zero? Length is > non-zero already. > > General nitpick comment: Kernel-doc allows for a standard return > syntax. Ok, I will fix such instances. > > Return: length of bytes written or negative value on failure. > >> diff --git a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h >> index f589d3b..74eed42 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h >> +++ b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h >> @@ -12,15 +12,9 @@ >> #ifndef _LINUX_NVMEM_PROVIDER_H >> #define _LINUX_NVMEM_PROVIDER_H >> >> -struct nvmem_device; >> +#include >> >> -struct nvmem_cell_info { >> - const char *name; >> - int offset; >> - int bytes; >> - int bit_offset; >> - int nbits; >> -}; > > Why does this move from provider to consumer? Can't we do put > this struct in the right place from the beginning? > I will take care of it in next version. --srini >> +struct nvmem_device; >