Re: [PATCHv2 4/7] input/cma3000_d0x: Add CMA3000 spi support

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>]

On 10/18/11 14:43, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
> Hello Jonathan
> 
>   First of all, thanks for your messages :).
> 
>> To make my point about these functions being more complex than needed
>> in more detail....
>>
>> If this were two functions and you drop the zero and 1 mask
>> (which I'm not convinced make any sense. I've also killed the message.
>> We both agree it is the wrong way to go, so post a patch fixing the i2c
>> interface as well.
> 
> Of course your functions are much more simpler and beautiful than the
> fat one I wrote, no doubt about it :). Just three comments
> 
> - Checking the one mask and the zero mask is the only way we have to
> know if the chip is still there, The absense of that reply should
> trigger an IO error or at least a retry. As you point out, the
> zero/one mask is only violated on startup.  I just wanted to make it
> more risk free, but if you believe it is more clear that way, lets
> remove it
It's somewhat unconventional to verify the existence of a chip like this.
Usually you assume that if it was there once it still is unless there
is a very good reason to think otherwise.  Worth doing an initial check
in your spi_probe and indeed verify there against these known bits.
No need to do it every time though.
> 
> - I am not very fun of kmallocing data per write, specially when it is
> part of the irq handler, and you expect this to be low latency. What
> about allocating a buffer on init time, and use it with a mutex?
That's absolutely fine and the right way to do it. You could poke it
into the cma3000_accl_data then use the cachline aligned magic. Its
is tiny so I doubt anyone will mind the overhead for the i2c side of
things.
> 
> -I dont like the push error message to the bottom, but that will mean
> a rewrite of the cma3000 driver, shall I go for it?
I would. Though probably worth getting Hemanth to say if he minds first
given it's his driver!
> 
> 
> Thanks again, and  I will post the new version when you reply this :)
> 
>