Re: [PATCH] rtc: Added support for ds1672 control

[Kumar Gala]

On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Alessandro Zummo wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:07:33 -0600 (CST)
> Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  is almost ok, please check my comments below:
>
> >  	buf[0] = DS1672_REG_CNT_BASE;
> >  	buf[1] = secs & 0x000000FF;
> >  	buf[2] = (secs & 0x0000FF00) >> 8;
> >  	buf[3] = (secs & 0x00FF0000) >> 16;
> >  	buf[4] = (secs & 0xFF000000) >> 24;
> > +	buf[5] = 0;
>
>  I'd add a comment to say that 0 enables the osc.

ack.

> > +static int ds1672_get_control(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
>
> [..]
>
> > +	} else
> > +		return val;
> > +}
>
>  I think it would be cleaner to define the routine as follow:
> .. ds1672_get_control(...., unsigned char *status)
>
>  and to usa the space provided by the caller to store the result.
>
> > +	if (ds1672_get_control(client))
> > +		state = "disabled";
> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", state);
> > +}

Not sure if I follow you here.  I think you are suggesting for  
ds1672_get_control to look like:

static int ds1672_get_control(struct i2c_client *client, u8 *status)
{
        unsigned char addr = DS1672_REG_CONTROL;

        struct i2c_msg msgs[] = {
                { client->addr, 0, 1, &addr },          /* setup  
read ptr */
                { client->addr, I2C_M_RD, 1, status },  /* read  
control */
        };
...
}

which is fine.  Any suggestions on what to do on an error in the  
sysfs attrib function?

> please #define DS1672_REG_CONTROL_EOSC 0x80
> and check the single bit.

ack

> > +	err = ds1672_get_control(client);
>
>  ditto.
>
>
>  thanks for your work!

no problem.

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