Re: [PATCH] PCAP RTC driver (for 2.6.32).

[Daniel Ribeiro <drwyrm@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Em Sex, 2009-06-26 às 13:23 -0700, Andrew Morton escreveu:
> This could be coded more simply:
> 
> 	unsigned long rtc_events;
> 
> 	if (irq == pcap_to_irq(pcap_rtc->pcap, PCAP_IRQ_1HZ))
> 		rtc_events = RTC_IRQF | RTC_UF;
> 	else if (irq == pcap_to_irq(pcap_rtc->pcap, PCAP_IRQ_TODA))
> 		rtc_events = RTC_IRQF | RTC_AF;

This would make gcc complain about rtc_events being used uninitialized.

> SEC_PER_DAY is defined in include/linux/mfd/ezx-pcap.h.  It should not
> be, because it is not specific to that driver and can be used elsewhere
> in the kernel.
> 
> I'd suggest that we
> 
> - define SECS_PER_DAY in include/linux/time.h
> 
> - remove the private definitions of SECS_PER_DAY from
>   arch/m68k/mac/misc, arch/parisc/include/asm/rtc.h,
>   arch/ia64/hp/sim/boot/fw-emu.c, fs/udf/udftime.c, fs/fat/misc.c and
>   wherever else it appears, make those files use the common definition
> 
> - migrate rtc-pcap.c from SEC_PER_DAY over to the common SECS_PER_DAY.
> 
> - Then do it all again for SECS_PER_MIN and SECS_PER_HOUR.
> 
> 
> What a mess.

I can't work on this right now, but i will be happy to reserve some
hours for this next month if nobody else does it before.

> "tmp" is a poor identifier.  We had an opportunity here to use an
> identifier which would communicate useful information to the reader. 
> But we blew it and used the information-free "tmp" instead.
> 
> Something like
> 
> 	u32 time_of_day;	/* In seconds since midnight */
> 
> would be nice.  If that is indeed what the variable contains.  How
> would I know?  It's called 'tmp" and is undescribed!

Hum.. I used tmp because the variable is reused and it may be "days
since 1/1/1970" or "seconds since today's 00:00:00". I will add some
comments to make this clear.

> > +static inline int pcap_rtc_irq_enable(struct device *dev, int pirq,
> > +							unsigned int en)
> > +{
> Inlining this function probably made the code larger and slower.

Right, i will amend this.


I see that you have already added it to the -mm tree. Do you prefer an
incremental patch to address your comments or should I send a patch to
replace the current version?

Thanks for the review! :)

-- 
Daniel Ribeiro

[-- Attachment #2: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]