Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:31:19 -0800 | From | Christopher Heiny <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/11] input: RMI4 public header file and documentation. |
| |
On 01/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 06:09:52PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: >> + >> +/* Helper fn to convert a byte array representing a short in the RMI >> + * endian-ness to a short in the native processor's specific endianness. >> + * We don't use ntohs/htons here because, well, we're not dealing with >> + * a pair of shorts. And casting dest to short* wouldn't work, because >> + * that would imply knowing the byte order of short in the first place. >> + */ >> +static inline void batohs(unsigned short *dest, unsigned char *src) >> +{ >> + *dest = src[1] * 0x100 + src[0]; >> +} >> + >> +/* Helper function to convert a short (in host processor endianess) to >> + * a byte array in the RMI endianess for shorts. See above comment for >> + * why we dont us htons or something like that. >> + */ >> +static inline void hstoba(unsigned char *dest, unsigned short src) >> +{ >> + dest[0] = src % 0x100; >> + dest[1] = src / 0x100; >> +} > > We have nice set of be/le16_to_cpu and cpu_to_be/le16 helpers that do > just that and in much more efficient way.
Yay! We'll switch to those.
> >> + >> +/* Utility routine to handle writes to read-only attributes. Hopefully >> + * this will never happen, but if the user does something stupid, we don't >> + * want to accept it quietly (which is what can happen if you just put NULL >> + * for the attribute's store function). >> + */ >> +static inline ssize_t rmi_store_error(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + const char *buf, size_t count) >> +{ >> + dev_warn(dev, >> + "RMI4 WARNING: Attempt to write %d characters to read-only " >> + "attribute %s.", count, attr->attr.name); >> + return -EPERM; >> +} >> + >> +/* Utility routine to handle reads of write-only attributes. Hopefully >> + * this will never happen, but if the user does something stupid, we don't >> + * want to accept it quietly (which is what can happen if you just put NULL >> + * for the attribute's show function). >> + */ >> +static inline ssize_t rmi_show_error(struct device *dev, >> + struct device_attribute *attr, >> + char *buf) >> +{ >> + dev_warn(dev, >> + "RMI4 WARNING: Attempt to read from write-only attribute %s.", >> + attr->attr.name); >> + return -EPERM; >> +} > > Although these methods are not needed, a general comment nonetheless: do > not put in header files and mark inline functions which address is taken > and used elsewhere.
OK.
| |