Re: [PATCH 3/4] Intel PTI implementaiton of MIPI 1149.7.

[J Freyensee]

> > 
> > static void pti_tty_cleanup(struct tty_struct *tty)
> > {
> >      if (!tty->driver_data)
> >              return;
> >      pti_release_masterchannel(tty->driver_data->mc);
> >      kfree(tty->driver_data);
> > }
> > 
> 
> I think I answered this already; I like the suggestion and will tweak.
> 
> > ...
> > > +static int pti_tty_driver_write(struct tty_struct *tty,
> > > +	const unsigned char *buf, int len)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct pti_masterchannel *mc;
> > > +	struct pti_tty *pti_tty_data;
> > > +
> > > +	pti_tty_data = tty->driver_data;
> > > +	mc = pti_tty_data->mc;
> > > +	pti_write_to_aperture(mc, (u8 *)buf, len);
> > > +
> > > +	return len;
> > > +}
> > 
> > I'd like to suggest this as an alternative:
> > 
> > static int pti_tty_driver_write(struct tty_struct *tty,
> >      const unsigned char *buf, int len)
> > {
> >      pti_write_to_aperture(tty->driver_data->mc, (u8 *)buf, len);
> >      return len;
> > }
> > 
> > 
> 
> If there is no objections I will do it.  What I've coded is the observed
> coding style I've seen, if for no other reason that to shorten up the
> number of '->' used in accessing a member of driver_data.  But this
> doesn't look so bad/ugly.
> 

Ok, so now I remember why this suggestion isn't good and I am going to
have to go back to what I had before.  Some picky compilers do not like
for you to do operations on (void *) variables, other than a beginning
assign statement to a variable with an actual type.    


--
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/