[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6] I2C: New chip driver: sis5595

    Quoting myself:

    > To me, the only acceptable simplification is
    > the initialization of "last_updated" to something which ensures that
    > the first update attempt will succeed - providing we actually can do
    > that.

    On second thought, we obviously cannot, because jiffies wrap, so there is
    no single initial value of "last_updated", either relative or
    absolute, which can ensure this condition to be true. I think we are
    stuck we this "valid" flag, or at least with the concept thereof.
    Possibly we can use "last_updated" itself as a flag if we absolutely
    want to get rid of "valid". "last_updated == 0" would mean the same
    as "valid == 0" did. The probability of "last_updated" to become 0
    again after init time is obviously thin, and it wouldn't really hurt if
    it did (it would simply allow an extra update to happen). That said,
    this makes the code somewhat trickier.

    What could (and should) be done anyway is to use time_after() or
    something equivalent for the jiffies checks, instead of direct
    coparison, in all hardware monitoring drivers.

    Jean Delvare
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.021 / U:5.916 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site