On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 06:57:28PM +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 17:09:41 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > + omap_writew(0, (OMAP_MPUIO_BASE + OMAP_MPUIO_IO_CNTL));
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Could that be done in a macro?
Is there any benefit to doing so?
> > + udelay(0.04);
>
> Floating point in the kernel?
Not quite. udelay is a macro on ARM so this ends up as an integer before
it ever hits a function call. In an ideal world I'd use "ndelay(40);"
but that would result in a delay of over 1µs as ARM doesn't have ndelay
defined so we hit the generic fallback.
> > + ams_delta_mtd = kmalloc (sizeof(struct mtd_info) +
> ^
> > + sizeof (struct nand_chip), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Remove space
>
> And please create a structure containing both struct mtd_info and
> struct nand_chip. Then use sizeof(that structure)...
This format is used throughout the drivers/mtd/nand/ directory. I'd
suggest it'd be more appropriate to have a separate patch that did this
for all of them if it's desired, rather than having each driver do its
own thing.
Agreed on all the spacing comments you raised; hangovers from toto.c
that I used as a base.
J.
--
I am a passenger.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
