I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission. As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro, and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code, thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.
Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <[email protected]> --- drivers/mtd/nand/cafe_nand.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/cafe_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/cafe_nand.c index 0b0c937..20f7abb 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/cafe_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/cafe_nand.c @@ -72,23 +72,23 @@ struct cafe_priv { }; static int usedma = 1; -module_param(usedma, int, 0644); +module_param(usedma, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static int skipbbt = 0; -module_param(skipbbt, int, 0644); +module_param(skipbbt, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static int debug = 0; -module_param(debug, int, 0644); +module_param(debug, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static int regdebug = 0; -module_param(regdebug, int, 0644); +module_param(regdebug, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static int checkecc = 1; -module_param(checkecc, int, 0644); +module_param(checkecc, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static unsigned int numtimings; static int timing[3]; -module_param_array(timing, int, &numtimings, 0644); +module_param_array(timing, int, &numtimings, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static const char *part_probes[] = { "cmdlinepart", "RedBoot", NULL }; -- 2.9.2
