Re: [PATCH v3 00/16] DocG3 fixes and write support

[Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>]

Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi, pushed to l2-mtd-2.6.git, thanks!
Great, seen it coming down to linux-next :)

> 1. The reviewers did not give you any "Reviewed-by:" ?
You already did all the work for me in linux-next, thanks.

> 2. This series has one checkpatch.pl complaint in patch 15, which looks
> fair:
In the patch following this mail taken into account.

> 3. When I compile with gcc-4.6 for x68_64 I see the following
> compilation warnings:
>
>   CC [M]  drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.o
> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c: In function ‘doc_read_oob’:
> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:630:3: warning: passing argument 2 of ‘doc_get_hw_bch_syndroms’ from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:513:13: note: expected ‘int *’ but argument is of
> type ‘u8 *’
In the patch following the mail, it was in one of Mike's last remarks.

> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c: At top level:
> drivers/mtd/devices/docg3.c:762:12: warning: ‘doc_get_erase_count’ defined but
> not used [-Wunused-function]
Ah, this one gives me trouble. I made that function so that future evolutions of
MTD api can cope with hardware knowing how many times a block was erased.

My proposition is to make a sysfs entry which will dump the list of all blocks
(from 0 to 2047 for docg3), and for each block print the number of erases. This
will clear the warning, and can be used for very specialized userspace
applications when they choose which block to erase.
This will be another patch I didn't do yet.

> 4. sparse gives the following warning:
I don't have that warning with C=1.
Moreover, the line (630) in l2-mtd-git or linux-next points towards a comment
line. I tried to have a peek at all "syns" usage and it seems correct to me.
So let's think this was a transient error in the whole patch serie.

> Could you please look at 2, 3, and 4? I did not look whether they are
> fair or not. Please, do not re-send the series again, I think it is OK
> if you send incremental fixes instead. Or if you at some point re-send
> v4, you can incorporate the warnings fixes, but please, do not send 16
> patches again only because of this :-)

Roger, single little patch. Don't worry, I think the big work is over for
docg3 ... now Mike's docg3 will be comming soon :)

-- 
Robert