From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760931Ab0J0L1g (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:27:36 -0400 Received: from sm-d311v.smileserver.ne.jp ([203.211.202.206]:23925 "EHLO sm-d311v.smileserver.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755357Ab0J0L1d (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:27:33 -0400 Message-ID: <008201cb75c9$f27ff720$66f8800a@maildom.okisemi.com> From: "Tomoya MORINAGA" To: "Marc Kleine-Budde" , "Wolfgang Grandegger" Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , "David Miller" , , References: <4CC61B1B.3090602@dsn.okisemi.com> <20101026.105206.15244527.davem@davemloft.net> <20101026.105545.200376685.davem@davemloft.net><4CC71DA4.3020600@grandegger.com> <4CC72360.1070608@pengutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Fix buildwarnings Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:27:29 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1983 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1983 X-Hosting-Pf: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 3.5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:52 AM : Marc Kleine-Budde and Wolfgang Grandegge wrote: The following is some inarticulate points I have for your questions. Please give me more information. > Do I understand your code correctly? You have a big loop, but only do > two different things at certain values of the loop? Smells fishy. Uh, I can't understand your intention. Please show in detail. This processing does configuration for all message objects. > what does this loop do? why is it nessecarry? I don't like delay loops > in the hot path of a driver. This loop is for waiting for all tx Message Object completion. This is Topcliff CAN HW specification. > If you figured out how to use the endianess conversion functions from > the cpu_to_{le,be}-{le,to}_to_cpup family use them here, too. Uh,le32_to_cpu have been used already here. I can't understand your intention. Please show in detail. >> All these check if busy in the code make me a bit nervous, can you >> please explain why they are needed. A pointer to the manual is okay, too. > Me too. I already ask in my previous mail how long that functions > usually blocks. When accessing read/write from/to Message RAM, Since it takes much time for transferring between Register and Message RAM, SW must check busy flag of CAN register. This is a Topcliff HW specification. > is there some pdev->name instead of KBUILD_MODNAME that can be used? I can't understand your intention. pdev(struct pci_dev) doesn't have "name" member. Please show in detail. Thanks, Tomoya(OKI SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD.)