[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] RTC: SWARM I2C board initialization
    Hi Jean,

    > Let me just quote you:
    > "This is mostly habitual -- this is what the GNU Coding Standard specifies
    > for comments and which is enforced for GNU software which I have dealt a
    > lot with."
    > You didn't say it was common sense. You did say that it was what the
    > GNU Coding Standard specified, and as a consequence, what you were used
    > to. So please keep your "oh come on" for yourself, you pointed the
    > discussion in this direction yourself.

    Well, I take no habits that make no sense in the first place. And I have
    gone into great lengths to explain and justify what drives me in this case
    -- I got it from the GNU standard and got convinced it is good, so I got
    to using it. I can write comments according to a different style, no
    problem (as long as there is any defined style for a given case), but I
    have to put some explicit effort into it.

    Similarly, habitually I write code in the Linux indentation style because
    I like it, but I can use your hated GNU style (or any other that follows
    any recognisable rules) as well, except I have to put some brainpower into

    > What matters is not "the pieces of code I am interested in", but the
    > pieces of code _you_ are the master of, or not. As explained somewhere
    > else in this thread, you are free to use whatever style you like (as
    > long as it complies with Documentation/CodingStyle, that is) in new
    > code you write and in code you maintain. For all the rest, you should
    > stick to the surrounding style. This is common sense, as you'd say.

    Well, sorry, but I could only sense the lack of style in this piece of
    code, which is why I tried to apply some. You are free to disagree and as
    you have undertaken maintenance of this area I am going to respect it.

    > BTW, i2c-sibyte should be converted to a proper platform driver, so
    > that only platforms with such a device instantiate it.

    The whole of SiByte support should eventually get converted to implement
    platform initialisation. I started some of this with changes to the
    sb1250-mac.c Ethernet driver sometime in 2006, but no further progress has
    been made since. I have other priorities higher on the list, but I have
    not forgotten about it and will come back at some point unless someone
    else does it first.

    > Which legacy driver, "eeprom"? You should probably look into David
    > Brownell's at24c driver:
    > If it gets enough attention and testing, it could go upstream quickly.

    I can see if I can find a couple of cycles to spare and give this piece
    of code a shot with my SWARM. There is a pair of 128kB EEPROM chips
    onboard (one as a bootstrap option and one to store configuration) and I
    have two SDRAM modules installed providing another pair of a smaller size.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-09 22:31    [W:0.024 / U:10.488 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site