On 03/28/2014 09:08 AM, Mark Hounschell wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 07:34 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> These patches are fine and they were applied already.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:50:55PM -0400, Mark Hounschell wrote:
>>> @@ -4368,15 +4364,16 @@ static void dgap_do_bios_load(struct board_t *brd,
>>> uchar __user *ubios, int len)
>>> /*
>>> * Checks to see if the BIOS completed running on the card.
>>> */
>>> -static void dgap_do_wait_for_bios(struct board_t *brd)
>>> +static int dgap_do_wait_for_bios(struct board_t *brd)
>>
>> I wish this funciton returned negative error codes on error. It is
>> poorly named for a boolean function.
>>
>>> {
>>> uchar *addr;
>>> u16 word;
>>> u16 err1;
>>> u16 err2;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>
>> The ret variable is not needed. Replace it with zero literal for better
>> readability.
>>
>>> @@ -4455,15 +4452,16 @@ static void dgap_do_fep_load(struct board_t *brd,
>>> uchar *ufep, int len)
>>> /*
>>> * Waits for the FEP to report thats its ready for us to use.
>>> */
>>> -static void dgap_do_wait_for_fep(struct board_t *brd)
>>> +static int dgap_do_wait_for_fep(struct board_t *brd)
>>
>> Same as dgap_do_wait_for_bios().
>>
>
> Yes, they were not originally boolean functions. Would names like
> dgap_test_bios and dgap_test_fep be better names? And returns of
> -EIO if they fail and 0 if good?
>
I'll just post a new patch for review and fix as required.
Mark
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
