Hi Jon,
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 21:57:10, Hunter, Jon wrote:
> > - gpmc_write_reg(GPMC_SYSCONFIG, l);
> > - gpmc_mem_init();
> > + switch (conf & GPMC_WAITPIN_MASK) {
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_0:
> > + idx = GPMC_WAITPIN_IDX0;
> > + break;
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_1:
> > + idx = GPMC_WAITPIN_IDX1;
> > + break;
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_2:
> > + idx = GPMC_WAITPIN_IDX2;
> > + break;
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_3:
> > + idx = GPMC_WAITPIN_IDX3;
> > + break;
> > + /* no waitpin */
> > + case 0:
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(gpmc->dev, "multiple waitpins selected on CS:%u\n", cs);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> Why not combined case 0 and default? Both are invalid configurations so
> just report invalid selection.
Case 0 is not invalid, a case where waitpin is not used, default refers
to when a user selects multiple waitpins wrongly.
>
> >
> > - /* initalize the irq_chained */
> > - irq = OMAP_GPMC_IRQ_BASE;
> > - for (cs = 0; cs < GPMC_CS_NUM; cs++) {
> > - irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &dummy_irq_chip,
> > - handle_simple_irq);
> > - set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
> > - irq++;
> > + switch (conf & GPMC_WAITPIN_POLARITY_MASK) {
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_ACTIVE_LOW:
> > + polarity = LOW;
> > + break;
> > + case GPMC_WAITPIN_ACTIVE_HIGH:
> > + polarity = HIGH;
> > + break;
> > + /* no waitpin */
> > + case 0:
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + dev_err(gpmc->dev, "waitpin polarity set to low & high\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + break;
> > }
>
> Again, combine case 0 and default as these are invalid.
Similar to above
>
> > + if (gd->have_waitpin) {
> > + if (gd->waitpin != idx ||
> > + gd->waitpin_polarity != polarity) {
> > + dev_err(gpmc->dev, "error: conflict: waitpin %u
> > with polarity %d on device %s.%d\n",
> > + gd->waitpin, gd->waitpin_polarity,
> > + gd->name, gd->id);
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > + } else {
>
> Don't need the else as you are going to return in the above.
Not always, only in case of error
>
> > + gd->have_waitpin = true;
> > + gd->waitpin = idx;
> > + gd->waitpin_polarity = polarity;
> > + }
> > +
> > + l &= ~GPMC_CONFIG1_WAIT_PIN_SEL_MASK;
> > + l |= GPMC_CONFIG1_WAIT_PIN_SEL(idx);
> > + gpmc_cs_write_reg(cs, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1, l);
> > + } else if (polarity) {
> > + dev_err(gpmc->dev, "error: waitpin polarity specified with out
> > wait pin number on device %s.%d\n",
> > + gd->name, gd->id);
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> Drop this else-if. The above switch statements will report the bad
> configuration. This seems a bit redundant.
This is required as switch statements will not report error if polarity
is specified, w/o waitpin to be used.
Regards
Afzal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
