Hi Roger,
On 25 Feb 2015 17:58, Roger Quadros wrote:
static unsigned int gpmc_ticks_to_ps(unsigned int ticks)
@@ -346,16 +395,22 @@ static void gpmc_cs_bool_timings(int cs, const struct
gpmc_bool_timings *p)
* @st_bit Start Bit
* @end_bit End Bit. Must be >= @st_bit.
* @name DTS node name, w/o "gpmc,"
+ * @cd Clock Domain of timing parameter.
+ * @shift Parameter value left shifts @shift, which is then printed instead
of value.
* @raw Raw Format Option.
* raw format: gpmc,name = <value>
* tick format: gpmc,name = <value> /‍* x ticks *‍/
* @noval Parameter values equal to 0 are not printed.
- * @shift Parameter value left shifts @shift, which is then printed instead
of value.
*
*/
-static int get_gpmc_timing_reg(int cs, int reg, int st_bit, int end_bit,
- bool raw, bool noval, int shift,
- const char *name)
+static int get_gpmc_timing_reg(
+ /* timing specifiers */
+ int cs, int reg, int st_bit, int end_bit,
+ const char *name, const enum gpmc_clk_domain cd,
+ /* value transform */
+ int shift,
+ /* format specifiers */
+ bool raw, bool noval)
now that you are rearranging the parameters, "name" parameter should probably be
at the same position (or last) in get_gpmc_timing_reg() and
set_gpmc_timing_reg()?
Also clock domain (cd) position could be matched if possible.
I rearranged them primarily, because I wanted to group the specifiers
according to function, because I found it unnatural to add clock domain
to the end, when it's "more important" than the format specifiers.
set_gpmc_timing_reg are fine in that regard as it doesn't have format
specifiers.
+/**
+ * set_gpmc_timing_reg - set a single timing parameter for Chip Select Region.
+ * @cs Chip Select Region.
+ * @reg GPMC_CS_CONFIGn register offset.
+ * @st_bit Start Bit
+ * @end_bit End Bit. Must be >= @st_bit.
+ * @time Timing parameter in ns.
+ * @cd Timing parameter clock domain.
+ * @name Timing parameter name.
+ * @note Caller is expected to have initialized CONFIG1 GPMCFCLKDIVIDER
@note is not a parameter.
Well no, note's a note. This is a doxygen-style comment, so tools should
put a note in the created documentation. Doxygen will put a box with
yellow background, for instance.
- pr_err("%s: GPMC error! CS%d: %s: %d ns, %d ticks > %d\n",
+ pr_err("%s: GPMC CS%d: %s %d ns, %d ticks > %d ticks\n",
any reason for removing the "error!" string?
It's already pr_err, the "error!" in-between "GPMC CS%d" made it hard to
read and there's a WARN after that statement in all cases, because a
child _must_ fail if a timing parameter constraint is broken.
Regards,
Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
