On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:54:18 +0800 "Wu, Bryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi folks, 
> 
> [PATCH] Blackfin: blackfin i2c driver
> 
> The i2c linux driver for blackfin architecture which supports both GPIO
> i2c operation and blackfin on-chip TWI controller i2c operation.
> 

Little things...

> +static int __init i2c_hhbf_init(void)
> +{
> +
> +    if(gpio_request(CONFIG_BFIN_SCL, NULL)) {
> +     printk(KERN_ERR "%s: gpio_request GPIO %d failed \n",__FUNCTION__, 
> CONFIG_BFIN_SCL);
> +     return -1;
> +     }
> +
> +    if(gpio_request(CONFIG_BFIN_SDA, NULL)) {
> +     printk(KERN_ERR "%s: gpio_request GPIO %d failed \n",__FUNCTION__, 
> CONFIG_BFIN_SDA);
> +     return -1;
> +     }

whitespace breakage there

> +
> +    gpio_direction_output(CONFIG_BFIN_SCL);
> +    gpio_direction_input(CONFIG_BFIN_SDA);
> +    gpio_set_value(CONFIG_BFIN_SCL, 1);    
> +
> +    return i2c_bit_add_bus(&hhbf_ops);
> +}
> +
> +#define TWI_I2C_MODE_COMBINED                0x04
> +
> +struct bfin_twi_iface
> +{

        struct bfin_twi_iface {

> +     struct semaphore        twi_lock;

Can this be converted to a mutex?

> +     int                     irq;
> +     spinlock_t              lock;
> + */
>
> ...
>
> +static int bfin_twi_master_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg 
> msgs[], int num)
> +{
> +     struct bfin_twi_iface* iface = (struct bfin_twi_iface*)adap->algo_data;

This code has zillions of unneeded casts of void*

> +     struct i2c_msg *pmsg;
> +     int i, ret;
> +     int rc = 0;
> +
> +     if (!(bfin_read_TWI_CONTROL() & TWI_ENA))
> +             return -ENXIO;
> +
> +     down(&iface->twi_lock);
> +
> +     while (bfin_read_TWI_MASTER_STAT() & BUSBUSY) {
> +             up(&iface->twi_lock);
> +             schedule();
> +             down(&iface->twi_lock);
> +     }

That's a busy loop until this task's timeslice has expired.  It'll work,
but it'll suck a bit.  (Repeated in several places)

> +     ret = 0;
> +     for (i = 0; rc >= 0 && i < num;) {
> +             pmsg = &msgs[i++];

Strange.  Why not do the i++ in the `for' statement?

> +             if (pmsg->flags & I2C_M_TEN) {
> +                     printk(KERN_ERR "i2c-bfin-twi: 10 bits addr not 
> supported !\n");
> +                     rc = -EINVAL;
> +                     break;
> +             }
> +
>
> ...
>
> +     switch (iface->cur_mode) {
> +     case TWI_I2C_MODE_STANDARDSUB:
> +             bfin_write_TWI_XMT_DATA8(iface->command);
> +             bfin_write_TWI_INT_MASK(MCOMP | MERR | ((iface->read_write == 
> I2C_SMBUS_READ) ? RCVSERV : XMTSERV));

It's preferred if code is readable in an 80-col display.

> +             SSYNC();
> +
> +             if (iface->writeNum + 1 <= 255)
> +                     bfin_write_TWI_MASTER_CTL(((iface->writeNum+1) << 6));

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to