lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/30] viafb: Move core stuff into via-core.c
    Jonathan Corbet schrieb:
    > On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:02:30 +0200
    > Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de> wrote:
    >
    >>> struct fb_info *viafbinfo;
    >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(viafbinfo);
    >>> struct fb_info *viafbinfo1;
    >>> struct viafb_par *viaparinfo;
    >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(viaparinfo);
    >>> struct viafb_par *viaparinfo1;
    >> Ugh, I really hope you introduce those only as temporary exports until
    >> the split is finished. It's ugly enough that viafb uses these internally
    >> as global variables which will vanish in some time but for a
    >> multifunction driver having those sounds even more ridiculous. If we
    >> agree that it's only a temporary solution I'll take this bitter pill.
    >
    > No we don't agree... what we're seeing here is some history that I did
    > not succeed in getting rid of entirely. Those exports have no reason
    > to exist anymore and shouldn't have slipped through into that patch. I
    > will most certainly make them go away.

    That's even better.

    >>> @@ -1764,6 +1765,7 @@ static int __devinit via_pci_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev,
    >>> &viaparinfo->shared->lvds_setting_info2;
    >>> viaparinfo->crt_setting_info = &viaparinfo->shared->crt_setting_info;
    >>> viaparinfo->chip_info = &viaparinfo->shared->chip_info;
    >>> + spin_lock_init(&viaparinfo->reg_lock);
    >> I think the initialization of the lock that is made for synchronization
    >> of hardware access should be in the via-core.c you just introduce. (and
    >> the lock itself in a structure or something outside the framebuffer
    >> flow). Just saw that you did so in your next patch, so there is no
    >> reason to needlessly introduce the spinlock now.
    >
    > As you note, it's only there for one step in the series, and no
    > electrons are harmed in the process. Is this really worth the trouble
    > of changing?

    Well I only noticed it just before sending. Not needlessly changing code
    would make the patches simpler but as I know now what is going on I
    don't insist on changing it.


    Thanks,

    Florian Tobias Schandinat


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-01 17:33    [W:0.024 / U:62.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site