Re: [PATCH] max3100 driver

[chri <chripell@gmail.com>]

Sorry, sent HTML mail by mistake, so resending :-/


On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > +#define MAX3100_MAJOR 204
>
> Allocating a new major is a Big Deal.  It involves getting the major
> registered by contacting device@lanana.org.
>
> It's better to dynamically allocate it - let udev handle it.
>


I looked at other serial driver as an example and checked devices.txt:
if I don't get it wrong major 204 should be already reserved for
serial port. Anyway I choose a minor number already allocated by
mistake (did not see the "...") and will correct that. Is this ok or I
*have to* move to dynamic major (it's a bit a nuisance since max3100
is used in embedded system where udev is not always used)?


> `struct max3100_port' is sufficient, and would be more typical.
>
> > +     struct uart_port port;
> > +     struct spi_device *spi;
> > +
> > +     int cts:1;              /* last CTS received for flow ctrl */
> > +     int tx_empty:1;         /* last TX empty bit */
>
> These two bits will share a word and hence locking is needed to prevent
> modifications to one from trashing modifications to the other on SMP.
>
> That's OK, but it would be best to document that locking right here, and
> to check that it is adhered to.
>


I did not realize this until you explained me. I'm not sure if actual
packing of bit-fields is implementation dependent but I think so. If
this is right I guess it's better to avoid bit-fields in structs that
can be accessed concurrently (or otherwise I have to lock the entire
struct). So, should I avoid bit-fields altogether?

I will correct the patch and resend.

Thanks,

--
Christian Pellegrin, see http://www.evolware.org/chri/
"Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport which requires
you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and Real Programmers
wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly
spring up in the middle of the computer room."