Hey Greg-

Thanks for the comments.

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:37:09PM -0700, Josh Cartwright wrote:

quoted

--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/of/of_spmi.c

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+/* Copyright (c) 2012,2013 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
+ * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ */
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "%s: " fmt, __func__

As you never make a pr_* call in this file, this line isn't needed.

I'll clean these up for v2.

quoted

+static int
+spmi_read_data(struct spmi_device *sdev, uint8_t *buf, int offset, int cnt)
+{
+	int ret = 0;
+	int len;
+	uint16_t addr;
+
+	while (cnt > 0) {
+		addr = offset & 0xFFFF;
+		len = min(cnt, MAX_REG_PER_TRANSACTION);
+
+		ret = spmi_ext_register_readl(sdev, addr, buf, len);
+		if (ret < 0) {
+			pr_err("SPMI read failed, err = %d\n", ret);

Should be using dev_err() instead.

These too.

[..]

quoted

+
+	/* Make a copy of the user data */
+	char *kbuf = kmalloc(count + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!kbuf)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	ret = copy_from_user(kbuf, buf, count);
+	if (ret == count) {
+		pr_err("failed to copy data from user\n");

No need for a message here at all, you will get a message in the
function if something happened wrong.

Also, shouldn't it just be a simple:
	if (copy_from_user()) {
test?

Indeed, thanks.

[..]

quoted

+void __exit spmi_dfs_exit(void)
+{
+	pr_debug("de-initializing spmi debugfs ...");

Not needed, use the in-kernel trace functionality if you really want to
know this.

Will kill these.

quoted

--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-dbgfs.h

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+/* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
+ * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ */
+#ifndef _SPMI_DBGFS_H
+#define _SPMI_DBGFS_H
+
+#include <linux/spmi.h>
+#include <linux/debugfs.h>
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS

Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
right?

Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading.

Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want
the SPMI core to create device entries?".  It would probably make more
sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as
other busses have.

The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in
the Makefile:

  spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o

quoted

+
+extern void __init spmi_dfs_init(void);
+extern void __exit spmi_dfs_exit(void);
+extern void spmi_dfs_add_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl);
+extern void spmi_dfs_del_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl);
+extern void spmi_dfs_add_device(struct spmi_device *sdev);
+extern void spmi_dfs_del_device(struct spmi_device *sdev);
+
+#else
+
+static inline void __init spmi_dfs_init(void) { }
+static inline void __exit spmi_dfs_exit(void) { }
+static inline void spmi_dfs_add_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl) { }
+static inline void spmi_dfs_del_controller(struct spmi_controller *ctrl) { }
+static inline void spmi_dfs_add_device(struct spmi_device *sdev) { }
+static inline void spmi_dfs_del_device(struct spmi_device *sdev) { }
+#endif
+
+#endif /* _SPMI_DBGFS_H */

Thanks,
  Josh

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation