On Saturday 15 December 2007, Adrian McMenamin wrote: > diff -ruN ./linux-2.6-orig/drivers/sh/gdrom/gdrom.c > ./linux-2.6/drivers/sh/gdrom/gdrom.c i think your e-mail client word wrapped a little ... > + if (gd.toc) > + kfree(gd.toc); i dont know how the kernel functions, but in userspace, free(NULL) is acceptable ... > + memcpy(gd.toc, tocB, sizeof (struct gdromtoc)); > + else > + memcpy(gd.toc, tocA, sizeof (struct gdromtoc)); since gd.toc and toc[BA] are of the same type, cant you just: *gd.toc = *tocA also, since tocB/tocA only exist in this function (you kzalloc() at the top and kfree() at the bottom), and you dont do something like "gd.toc = tocA", why use the memory allocator at all ? i dont think they are too large for the stack (~400bytes a piece) ... maybe they are ... > +static int gdrom_open(struct cdrom_device_info *cd_info, int purpose) > +{ > + int err; > + /* spin up the disk */ > + err = gdrom_preparedisk_cmd(); > + if (err) > + return -EIO; > + > + return 0; > +} is it normal to normalize all errors like this ? it'd be a much simpler function like: { return gdrom_preparedisk_cmd(); } > +static irqreturn_t gdrom_command_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + if (dev_id != &gd) > + return IRQ_NONE; > + gd.status = ctrl_inb(GDROM_STATUSCOMMAND_REG); > + if (gd.pending != 1) > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > .... > +static irqreturn_t gdrom_dma_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > +{ > + if (dev_id != &gd) > + return IRQ_NONE; > + gd.status = ctrl_inb(GDROM_STATUSCOMMAND_REG); > + if (gd.transfer != 1) > + return IRQ_HANDLED; if you dont have a pending interrupt, shouldnt it return IRQ_NONE here ? Paul already mentioned the weird dev_id check. > +static int gdrom_readdisk_dma(int block, int block_cnt, char *buffer) > +{ > + int err; > + struct packet_command *read_command; > + /* release the spin lock but check later > + * we're not in the middle of some dma */ > + spin_unlock(&gdrom_lock); > + ctrl_outl(0x8843407F, GDROM_DMA_ACCESS_CTRL_REG); /* memory setting */ it'd be nice if these magic #'s had more explanation behind them, but you may simply not have that information :/ > +static void gdrom_request(struct request_queue *rq) > +{ > + struct request *req; > + unsigned long pages; > + pages = rq->backing_dev_info.ra_pages; > + while ((req = elv_next_request(rq)) != NULL) { > + if (! blk_fs_request(req)) { > + printk(KERN_DEBUG "GDROM: Non-fs request ignored\n"); > + end_request(req, 0); > + } > + if (rq_data_dir(req)) { > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "GDROM: Read only device - write request > ignored\n"); + end_request(req, 0); > + } > + if (req->nr_sectors) { > + gdrom_request_handler_dma(req); > + } > + } > +} no need for all the {} in the last two if()'s > +/* Print string identifying GD ROM device */ > +static void gdrom_outputversion(void) > +{ > + struct gdrom_id *id; > + char *model_name, *manuf_name, *firmw_ver; > + /* query device ID */ > + id = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gdrom_id), GFP_KERNEL); i dont know how other people feel, but i think the style: sizeof(*id) is cleaner and leads to less bitrot ... also, you dont have an "if (!id)" check there ... Paul pointed out plenty of other stuff for this func ;) also, wrt to sizes ("16" and "17"), arent there some defines you can key off of or something ? > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("GD-ROM Driver"); SEGA Dreamcast GD-ROM Driver ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- [PATCH 2/3] Add GD-Rom support to the SEGA Dreamcast
- From: "Adrian McMenamin" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 2/3] Add GD-Rom support to the SEGA Dreamcast
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c: remove some inlines
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] be more verbose when probing EDD
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add GD-Rom support to the SEGA Dreamcast
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add GD-Rom support to the SEGA Dreamcast
- Index(es):