Re: [PATCH] Driver for GE PIO2 VME Card

[Martyn Welch]

On 04/11/11 20:00, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 08:55:14PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
>> A few random remarks follow. Ie, things that came up while quickly
>> scanning this.
>>
>> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 17:33 +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
>>> index ca5ba89..99f5414 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vme/devices/Kconfig
>>> @@ -6,3 +6,13 @@ config VME_USER
>>>  	  If you say Y here you want to be able to access a limited number of
>>>  	  VME windows in a manner at least semi-compatible with the interface
>>>  	  provided with the original driver at http://vmelinux.org/.
>>
>> Blank line here.
>>
>>> +config VME_PIO2
>>> +	tristate "GE PIO2 VME"
>>> +	help
>>> +	  If you say Y here you have a GE PIO2. The PIO2 is a 6U VME Card,
>>
>> Maybe something like: "Say Y here if you have a GE PIO2."?
>>
>>> +	  implementing 32 solid-state relay switched IO lines, in 4 groups of 8.
>>> +	  The IO lines are provided as input, output or both as a build time
>>> +	  option.
>>
>> What option would that be?
>>
>>> +	  Otherwise it is safe to say N here.
>>> +
>>
>> A lot of modules have the "if you say M here the module will be called"
>> boilerplate here (which actually doesn't match the line I just made up).
>>
>>> +/* These are required for each board */
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bus, "Enumeration of VMEbus to which the board is connected");
>>> +module_param_array(bus, int, &bus_num, 0);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(base, "Base VME address for PIO2 Registers");
>>> +module_param_array(base, long, &base_num, 0);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(vector, "VME IRQ Vector (Lower 4 bits masked)");
>>> +module_param_array(vector, int, &vector_num, 0);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(level, "VME IRQ Level");
>>> +module_param_array(level, int, &level_num, 0);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(variant, "Last 4 characters of PIO2 board variant");
>>> +module_param_array(variant, charp, &variant_num, 0);
>>> +
>>> +/* This is for debugging */
>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(loopback, "Enable loopback mode on all cards");
>>> +module_param(loopback, bool, 0);
>>
>> All module parameters have a sysfs visibility (or permission) of zero.
>> Why is that? (This might very well be a naive question. But I often
>> wonder why a certain parameter's permission isn't at least 400, just to
>> allow a quick check of that parameter.) Are arrays tricky in sysfs?
> 
> Yes, arrays are tricky, and in the end, all of these need to be "real"
> sysfs files, not module parameters, but for now, it's ok to leave it as
> is until the code is cleaned up.
> 

Hi Greg,

Am I right in thinking we wouldn't then be able to pass the parameters in the
boot args?

Martyn

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h


-- 
Martyn Welch (Principal Software Engineer) | Registered in England and
GE Intelligent Platforms                   | Wales (3828642) at 100
T +44(0)1327322748                         | Barbirolli Square, Manchester,
E martyn.welch@xxxxxx                      | M2 3AB  VAT:GB 927559189
--
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/