lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] clockevents: Introduce mode specific callbacks
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:24:53AM +0800, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 10 February 2015 at 22:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 01:06:23PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Mode transition callback(s): Only one of the two groups should be
> >> + * defined:
> >> + * - set_mode(), only for modes <= CLOCK_EVT_MODE_RESUME.
> >> + * - set_mode_{shutdown|periodic|oneshot|resume}().
> >> + */

> >> +static int clockevents_sanity_check(struct clock_event_device *dev)
> >> +{
> >> +}
> >
> > It appears to me you've not actually checked that condition outlined
> > above, a driver could set both the legacy and the new callbacks.
>
> Exactly for this reason I mentioned this in the logs:
>
> >> If the legacy ->set_mode() callback is provided, all mode specific
> >> callbacks would be ignored.
>
> So, either we can mention that in the code as well OR add code to
> check and WARN about that. Will do whatever looks better to you
> guys.

I think its better to be strict; esp. with new interfaces. It avoids
confusion.

Suppose a driver writer sees these new methods and thinks to use one
while still having the set_mode() one -- ie. he didn't actually read the
comment. We'd better make sure he fails and goes back to read it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-11 12:01    [W:0.060 / U:3.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site