Re: [PATCH] display class

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue Feb 27 2007 - 15:26:19 EST


> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:39:57 +0000 (GMT) James Simmons <jsimmons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here is the second round to the new display class. This is meant to unite
> the various solutions to display units ie acpi output device, auxdisplay
> and the defunct lcd class in the backlight directory. Please apply.
>

Little things..

> +static ssize_t display_show_name(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> +static ssize_t display_show_type(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> +static ssize_t display_show_contrast(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,

this stuff looks el-crappo in an 80-col display.

> +DECLARE_BITMAP(inuse, NUM_OF_DISPLAYS);

This guy can have static scope.

It's a bit awkward having a fixed size. I think lib/idr.c would suit for
this.

Also, we do set_bit() and clear_bit() on this, which are needlessly atomic.
If we hold a suitable lock then we can use __set_bit() and __clear_bit().

And we do need a suitable lock.

> +
> +struct display_device *display_device_register(struct display_driver *driver,
> + struct device *parent, void *devdata)
> +{
> + int idx = find_first_zero_bit(inuse, NUM_OF_DISPLAYS);
> + struct display_device *new_dev = NULL;
> + struct device *display_device = NULL;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!driver))
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + display_device = device_create(display_class, parent, 0, "display%d", idx);
> + if (IS_ERR(display_device))
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + new_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct display_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (likely(new_dev) && unlikely(driver->probe(new_dev, devdata))) {
> + dev_set_drvdata(display_device, new_dev);
> + new_dev->dev = display_device;
> + new_dev->parent = parent;
> + new_dev->driver = driver;
> + mutex_init(&new_dev->lock);
> + set_bit(idx, inuse);
> + new_dev->idx = idx;
> + } else
> + device_unregister(display_device);
> + return new_dev;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(display_device_register);

Because I think this function is racy in its handling of inuse?

> +static int __init display_class_init(void)
> +{
> + display_class = class_create(THIS_MODULE, "display");
> + if (IS_ERR(display_class)) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "Failed to create display class\n");
> + display_class = NULL;
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + display_class->dev_attrs = display_attrs;
> + display_class->suspend = display_suspend;
> + display_class->resume = display_resume;
> + bitmap_zero(inuse, NUM_OF_DISPLAYS);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#ifdef MODULE
> +module_init(display_class_init);
> +
> +static void __exit display_class_exit(void)
> +{
> + class_destroy(display_class);
> +}
> +module_exit(display_class_exit);
> +#else
> +subsys_initcall(display_class_init);
> +#endif

Why all the ifdeffery? I think plain old


static void __exit display_class_exit(void)
{
class_destroy(display_class);
}
module_exit(display_class_exit);
module_init(display_class_init);


would suit here.

Unless there's some special reason why we need subsys_initcall() here if
it's linked into vmlinux. If so, please add a comment so the next reader
doesn't get all confused too.

-
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/