From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <micha@neli.hopto.org>
Received: from edu-smtp-01.edutel.nl (edu-smtp-01.edutel.nl [88.159.1.175])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9A9B70CD
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:25:51 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <4C692E4C.4040300@neli.hopto.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:25:48 +0200
From: Micha Nelissen <micha@neli.hopto.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandre Bounine <alexandre.bounine@idt.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] RapidIO: Add switch-specific sysfs initialization
	callback
References: <1281712686-31308-1-git-send-email-alexandre.bounine@idt.com>
	<1281712686-31308-7-git-send-email-alexandre.bounine@idt.com>
In-Reply-To: <1281712686-31308-7-git-send-email-alexandre.bounine@idt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Alexandre Bounine wrote:
> -	if (!rdev->rswitch)
> -		goto out;
> -

Is it safe? All devices have a switch?

> @@ -63,10 +59,11 @@ struct device_attribute rio_dev_attrs[] = {
>  	__ATTR_RO(asm_did),
>  	__ATTR_RO(asm_vid),
>  	__ATTR_RO(asm_rev),
> -	__ATTR_RO(routes),
>  	__ATTR_NULL,
>  };
>  
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(routes, S_IRUGO, routes_show, NULL);
> +

This seems a separate change from the sw_sysfs? Why make it separate?

>   */
>  struct rio_switch {
> @@ -256,6 +257,7 @@ struct rio_switch {
>  			   u8 *sw_domain);
>  	int (*em_init) (struct rio_dev *dev);
>  	int (*em_handle) (struct rio_dev *dev, u8 swport);
> +	int (*sw_sysfs) (struct rio_dev *dev, int create);
>  	struct rio_dev *nextdev[0];
>  };

Why not make a sw_sysfs_create and sw_sysfs_remove? Is better for 
readability. Now you call 'sw_sysfs(dev, 0)' or 'sw_sysfs(dev, 1)';

Micha