Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] add TC G210 pci driver

Arnd Bergmann
2016-03-04T21:17:34Z

On Friday 04 March 2016 17:22:19 Joao Pinto wrote:
> This patch adds a glue pci driver for the Synopsys G210 Test Chip.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joao Pinto <jpinto-HKixBCOQz3hWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>

Mostly ok, just a few suggestions:

> +
> +/* Test Chip type expected values */
> +#define TC_G210_20BIT 20
> +#define TC_G210_40BIT 40
> +#define TC_G210_DEFAULTBIT 40
> +
> +static int tc_type = TC_G210_DEFAULTBIT;
> +module_param(tc_type, int, 0);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(tc_type, "Test Chip Type (20 = 20-bit, 40 = 40-bit)");
>

What is the effect of setting the wrong one here? I was thinking
it would be best to have the default be 'invalid' and then return
an error from the probe() function when you neither value is
set.

> +
> + /* Check Test Chip type and set the specific setup routine */
> + if (tc_type == TC_G210_20BIT) {
> + tc_dwc_g210_pci_hba_vops.custom_phy_initialization =
> + tc_dwc_g210_config_20_bit;
> + } else if (tc_type == TC_G210_40BIT) {
> + tc_dwc_g210_pci_hba_vops.custom_phy_initialization =
> + tc_dwc_g210_config_40_bit;
> + }

As for the platform driver, I would define two separate structures here,
and then mark the operations as 'const'.

> +static const struct pci_device_id tc_dwc_g210_pci_tbl[] = {
> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_SYNOPSYS, 0xB101, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0 },
> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_SYNOPSYS, 0xB102, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0 },
> + { } /* terminate list */
> +};

Is there any difference between these two IDs?

Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html