lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/12] thinkpad_ec: New driver for ThinkPad embedded controller access
Hi!

> The embedded controller on ThinkPad laptops has a non-standard interface
> at IO ports 0x1600-0x161F (mapped to LCP channel 3 of the H8S chip).
> The interface provides various system management services (currently
> known: battery information and accelerometer readouts). This driver
> provides access and mutual exclusion for the EC interface.
>
> The mainline hdaps driver already uses this hardware interface (in an
> incorrect and unsafe way), and will be converted to use this module in
> the following patches. Another driver using this module, tp_smapi, will
> be submitted later.
>
> The Kconfig entry is set to tristate and will be selected by hdaps and
> (eventually) tp_smapi, since thinkpad_ec does nothing by itself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shem Multinymous <multinymous@gmail.com>

Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>

> +/* Module parameters: */
> +static int tp_debug = 0;

Static variables do not need initializers.

> +module_param_named(debug, tp_debug, int, 0600);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug, "Debug level (0=off, 1=on)");
> +
> +/* A few macros for printk()ing: */
> +#define DPRINTK(fmt, args...) \
> + do { if (tp_debug) printk(KERN_DEBUG fmt, ## args); } while (0)

Is not there generic function doing this?

> +/* thinkpad_ec_lock:
> + * Get exclusive lock for accesing the controller. May sleep.
> + * Returns 0 iff lock acquired .
> + */

Linuxdoc?

> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thinkpad_ec_lock);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thinkpad_ec_try_lock);
> +void thinkpad_ec_unlock(void)
> +{
> + up(&thinkpad_ec_mutex);
> +}
> +

Do we need these wrappers? Perhaps just directly exporting the mutex?

> + /* Wait until EC starts writing its reply (~60ns on average).
> + * Releasing locks before this happens may cause an EC hang
> + * due to firmware bug!
> + */
> + for (i=0; i<TPC_REQUEST_RETRIES; ++i) {

I'd write i++ here (and in other loops)... just for consistency with
rest of kernel.

> +/*** Checking for EC hardware ***/
> +
> +/* thinkpad_ec_test:
> + * Ensure the EC LPC3 channel really works on this machine by making
> + * an arbitrary harmless EC request and seeing if the EC follows protocol.
> + * This test writes to IO ports, so execute only after checking DMI.
> + */
> +static int thinkpad_ec_test(void) {

{ on new line, please.

> +/* Search all DMI device names for a given type for a substrng */
> +static int __init dmi_find_substring(int type, const char *substr) {

same here.

> + struct dmi_device *dev = NULL;

unneeded initializer.

> +static int __init thinkpad_ec_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!check_dmi_for_ec()) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "thinkpad_ec: no ThinkPad embedded controller!\n");
> + return -ENODEV;

KERN_ERR is little strong here, no?


> + if (!request_region(TPC_BASE_PORT, TPC_NUM_PORTS,
> + "thinkpad_ec"))
> + {

{ on same line, please.
Pavel
--
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-07 16:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans