Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_PHUB driver to 2.6.35

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:30:51PM +0900, Masayuki Ohtake wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Greg KH" <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
> To: "Masayuki Ohtake" <masa-korg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <meego-dev@xxxxxxxxx>; "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <yong.y.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; <qi.wang@xxxxxxxxx>;
> <andrew.chih.howe.khor@xxxxxxxxx>; <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <margie.foster@xxxxxxxxx>;
> "Morinaga" <morinaga526@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [MeeGo-Dev][PATCH] Topcliff: Update PCH_PHUB driver to 2.6.35
> 
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:25:03PM +0900, Masayuki Ohtake wrote:
> > > Please find <MASA>
> >
> > If someone takes the time to review your code and ask questions, it is
> > considered common courtesy to at least answer them all and not ignore
> > some of them.  Please do so.
> >
> > > > >  drivers/misc/Kconfig    |    9 +
> > > > >  drivers/misc/Makefile   |    1 +
> > > > >  drivers/misc/pch_phub.c |  722 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 732 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > >  create mode 100755 drivers/misc/pch_phub.c
> > > >
> > > > You forgot to add documentation for your sysfs files in
> > > > Documentation/ABI/ which is a requiremend when you add new ones.
> > >
> > > <MASA>
> > > Which folder should we put stable/ or testing/ ?
> >
> > Which do you feel it should be in?
> I think 'testing' is appropriate.

Ok, when will you feel they should move to "stable"?

> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* SROM SPEC for MAC address assignment offset */
> > > > > +static const int pch_phub_mac_offset[ETH_ALEN] = {0x3, 0x2, 0x1, 0x0, 0xb, 0xa};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(pch_phub_mutex);
> > > > > +static struct pch_phub_reg pch_phub_reg;
> > > >
> > > > So you can only have one of these devices in a system at the same time?
> > > > What happens when a machine ships with two of them?
> > >
> > > <MASA>
> > > I can't understand the above questioin meaning.
> > > Give me more information, please.
> > > What's does the above "these devices" mean?
> >
> > The device the driver is controlling.  What happens when this driver
> > runs on a system that has 2 of these devices?  You need to be able to
> > handle multiple devices, and that doesn't happen with a single variable,
> > right?  Please dynamically allocate it and make the lock associated to
> > the actual device, not the whole driver, if possible.
> I can understand your saying.
> But our driver for Topcliff doesn't support multiple device but single device only.
> From LSI structure point of view, I think, it is impossible that
> topcliff is used as multiple devices.

Are you sure that this is going to be true?

> None the less, should our driver support multiple device ?

Yes, it is trivial to make it support multiple devices, which makes it
easier in the future if you happen to have a machine with more than one.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/