On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:02:21 +0200
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Boris Brezillon
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:03:45 +0200
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

quoted

1. For example,

#define ATMEL_NFC_CMD(pos, cmd)                        ((cmd) <<
(((pos) * 8) + 2))  

Well, I like to explicitly put parenthesis even when operator
precedence guarantees the order of the calculation ('*' is preceding
'+').  

That's my point. I'm not a LISP programmer.
Personally I think it makes readability worse.

So, it's a matter of taste.

quoted

quoted

4. First of all, why do you need this function in the first place?

+struct gpio_desc *
+atmel_nand_pdata_get_gpio(struct atmel_nand_controller *nc, int gpioid,
+                         const char *name, bool active_low,
+                         enum gpiod_flags flags)  

Because I don't want to duplicate the code done in
atmel_nand_pdata_get_gpio() each time I have to convert a GPIO number
into a GPIO descriptor, and that is needed to support platforms that
haven't moved to DT yet  

They should use GPIO lookup tables.

We don't encourage people to use platform data anymore.

We have unified device properties for something like "timeout-us", we
have look up tables when you need specifics like pwm, gpio, pinctrl,
...

Abusing platform data with pointers is also not welcome.

quoted

(in this case, avr32).  

It's dead de facto.

When last time did you compile kernel for it? What was the version of kernel?
Did it get successfully?

When are we going to remove avr32 support from kernel completely?

I'll let Nicolas answer that one.

quoted

quoted

5. BIT() macro:  

quoted

We could probably use BIT() in a few places.  

There are more places including data structures assignments.

Yes. These are minor changes. I'll try to fix them.
Note that I sometime prefer to keep (1 << X).

Example:

#define PMECC_CFG_READ_OP			(0 << 12)
#define PMECC_CFG_WRITE_OP			(1 << 12)

quoted

Again, this has been copied from the old driver. I'll have a closer
look.  

Exactly. You overlooked due to enormous LOC in the one change. See my
point below.

quoted

quoted

7. Question to all that distribution or whatever functions, don't you
have a common helper? Or each vendor requires different logic behind
it?  

What are you talking about? nand_chip hooks?  

That long arithmetic with some data.

Okay, so the code in pmecc.c. See, it's hard to follow a review when
you don't comment inline.

quoted

quoted

8. Have you checked what kernel library provides?  

I think so, but again, this is really vague, what kind of
open-coded functions do you think could be replaced with core libraries
helpers?  

I dunno, I'm asking you. Usually if I see a pattern I got a clue to
check lib/ and similar places. From time to time I discover something
new and interesting there.

If you're talking about the code in pmecc.c, yes, I already mentioned
in the header that it should be reworked to use some helpers from
lib/bch.c, but that's not the point of this series, and is left as
future improvements.

quoted

quoted

And I believe there are still issues like those. After, who is on
topic, might even find some logical and other issues...

P.S. TBH, so big change is unreviewable in meaningful time. To have a
comprehensive review I, for example, spend ~1h/250LOC, and
~2.5h/1000LOC, I would estimate ~4h/2000LOC. Imagine one to spend one
day for this. Any volunteer? Not me.  

I'm not asking you to review the whole driver, but you started to
comment on the code without pointing clearly to the things you wanted
me to address.  

Yes, because my point is *split* this to be reviewable.

And how do you do with new drivers? Do you ask people to split their
submissions in micro changes? I'm regularly reviewing drivers that are
several thousands LOC, and I don't ask people to split things just
because it's too long. When I ask them to split in different commits,
it's because they are doing several unrelated changes at once.

Note that I considered refactoring the existing driver in smaller
steps, but it's almost impossible, because the code is too messy and I
would end up with a huge series of patches that is not easier to review.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html