Hello Senthil,
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:44:49 +0530
Guruswamy Senthilvadivu <[email protected]> wrote:
> void __init omap_display_init(struct omap_dss_board_info
> *board_data)
> {
> + struct omap_hwmod *oh;
> + struct omap_device *od;
> + int l, i;
> + struct omap_display_platform_data pdata;
> + char *oh_name[] = {
> + "dss_dss",
> + "dss_dispc",
> + "dss_dsi1",
> + "dss_rfbi",
> + "dss_venc"
> + };
I think it's more common to write it this way:
char *oh_name[] = { "dss_dss", "dss_dispc", "dss_dsi1",
"dss_rfbi", "dss_venc" };
but I understand that this is just a matter of taste.
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(oh_name); i++) {
> + l = snprintf(oh_name[i], MAX_OMAP_DSS_HWMOD_NAME_LEN,
> + oh_name[i]);
> + WARN(l >= MAX_OMAP_DSS_HWMOD_NAME_LEN,
> + "String buffer overflow in DSS device setup\n");
Using snprintf() just to get the length of a string is a bit overkill.
strlen() is part of the kernel API :-)
However, about the name, see below.
> +
> + oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(oh_name[i]);
> + if (!oh) {
> + pr_err("Could not look up %s\n", oh_name[i]);
> + return ;
No space needed between return and the semi-colon.
> + }
> + strncpy(pdata.name, oh_name[i], sizeof(oh_name[i]));
Why do you need this name into the platform_data ? omap_device_build()
will already fill the omap_device->platform_device->name field with
exactly oh_name[i]. So your drivers can just do platform_device->name
to get the name if they need it.
> + pdata.board_data = board_data;
> + pdata.board_data->get_last_off_on_transaction_id = NULL;
> + pdata.device_enable = omap_device_enable;
> + pdata.device_idle = omap_device_idle;
> + pdata.device_shutdown = omap_device_shutdown;
pdata is defined outside of the loop, so you're passing the same pdata
address to each omap_device_build() call. Therefore, there's no need to
initialize pdata at each iteration of the loop.
> +struct omap_display_platform_data {
> + char name[MAX_OMAP_DSS_HWMOD_NAME_LEN];
> + struct omap_dss_board_info *board_data;
> + int (*device_enable)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> + int (*device_shutdown)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> + int (*device_idle)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> +};
I'm probably missing something, but I don't see those new
device_enable, device_shutdown, device_idle fields being used in the
following patches in your series. Did I look at the wrong place ?
Thanks!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
