Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

[Jamie Iles]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the review, a few comments inline.

Jamie

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:20:05PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 03:21:08PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright 2010-2011 Picochip LTD, Jamie Iles
> > + * http://www.picochip.com
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> > + * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
> > + * 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
> 
> Do you _really_ mean "any later version"?  Be sure about that please.
> You have that wording in all of your files you add, please be careful
> about it as you might have copied from code that did not have that
> wording (I'm not saying you did, just be sure about this.)

No I didn't mean to do that and I'm not sure where that came from.  I'll 
fix this up and take a look at some of my other patches!  Thanks for 
spotting that one.

> 
> > + */
> > +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "otp: " fmt
> > +
> > +#undef DEBUG
> 
> What is this for?

That shouldn't be there, I'll get rid of that.

> 
> > +#include <linux/cdev.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/fs.h>
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/list.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/otp.h>
> > +#include <linux/semaphore.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/sysfs.h>
> > +#include <linux/uaccess.h>
> > +
> > +static int otp_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp);
> > +static int otp_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp);
> > +static ssize_t otp_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
> > +			 size_t len, loff_t *offs);
> > +static ssize_t otp_read(struct file *filp, char __user *buf, size_t len,
> > +			loff_t *offs);
> > +static loff_t otp_llseek(struct file *filp, loff_t offs, int origin);
> > +
> > +static const struct file_operations otp_fops = {
> > +	.owner	    = THIS_MODULE,
> > +	.open	    = otp_open,
> > +	.release    = otp_release,
> > +	.write	    = otp_write,
> > +	.read	    = otp_read,
> > +	.llseek	    = otp_llseek,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(otp_sem);
> > +static int otp_we, otp_strict_programming;
> > +static struct otp_device *otp;
> > +static dev_t otp_devno;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Given a device for one of the otpN devices, get the corresponding
> > + * otp_region.
> > + */
> > +static inline struct otp_region *to_otp_region(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	return dev ? container_of(dev, struct otp_region, dev) : NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline struct otp_device *to_otp_device(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	return dev ? container_of(dev, struct otp_device, dev) : NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +bool otp_strict_programming_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > +	return otp_strict_programming;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(otp_strict_programming_enabled);
> > +
> > +static ssize_t otp_format_show(struct device *dev,
> > +			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > +{
> > +	struct otp_region *region = to_otp_region(dev);
> > +	enum otp_redundancy_fmt fmt;
> > +	const char *fmt_string;
> > +
> > +	if (down_interruptible(&otp_sem))
> > +		return -ERESTARTSYS;
> > +
> > +	if (region->ops->get_fmt(region))
> > +		fmt = region->ops->get_fmt(region);
> > +	else
> > +		fmt = OTP_REDUNDANCY_FMT_SINGLE_ENDED;
> > +
> > +	up(&otp_sem);
> > +
> > +	if (OTP_REDUNDANCY_FMT_SINGLE_ENDED == fmt)
> 
> While some people feel this somehow makes it harder to write bad C code,
> it's not the kernel style.  Please reverse this comparison.  If you
> accidentally put a '=' in there instead of '==', gcc would warn you
> about it.

I'm making a conscience effort _not_ to do that but it's still ingrained 
at the back of my mind and this code has been lingering about for a bit.

> 
> > +		fmt_string = "single-ended";
> > +	else if (OTP_REDUNDANCY_FMT_REDUNDANT == fmt)
> > +		fmt_string = "redundant";
> > +	else if (OTP_REDUNDANCY_FMT_DIFFERENTIAL == fmt)
> > +		fmt_string = "differential";
> > +	else if (OTP_REDUNDANCY_FMT_DIFFERENTIAL_REDUNDANT == fmt)
> > +		fmt_string = "differential-redundant";
> > +	else
> > +		fmt_string = NULL;
> 
> Just return -EINVAL here.
> 
> > +
> > +	return fmt_string ? sprintf(buf, "%s\n", fmt_string) : -EINVAL;
> 
> Then you don't have to do the embedded if in this statement.
> 
> Same thing goes for your other show/store functions.

Ok, I'll clean these up.

> 
> > +/**
> > + * struct otp_device - a picoxcell OTP device.
> > + *
> > + * @ops:		The operations to use for manipulating the device.
> > + * @dev:		The parent device (typically a platform_device) that
> > + *			provides the OTP.
> > + * @regions:		The regions registered to the device.
> > + * @size:		The size of the OTP in bytes.
> > + * @driver_data:	Private driver data.
> > + */
> > +struct otp_device {
> > +	const struct otp_device_ops	*ops;
> > +	struct device			dev;
> > +	struct list_head		regions;
> > +	size_t				size;
> > +	void				*driver_data;
> 
> Why do you need this pointer, can't you use the one in struct device
> that is there for this purpose?  Then provide a get/set function to
> access this field so that a driver doesn't go and poke in it directly.

Hmm, I thought I'd got rid of this; it isn't actually being used.  I am 
using the one in struct device but I haven't added the getter and setter 
so I'll put those in for next time.

Jamie
--
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/