AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090107133220.1554a47e@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:exch1.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<alessandro.zummo@towertech.it>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	20090106232141.76b28413@i1501.lan.towertech.it
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:56:59 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@towertech.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtc: rtc-ds1511 misc fixes
Message-ID: <20090107135659.3097ba26@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090106232141.76b28413@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
References: <20081114145131.24949.86165.stgit@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
	<20090106105420.24322f58@ripper.onstor.net>
	<20090106232141.76b28413@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:21:41 -0800 Alessandro Zummo
<alessandro.zummo@towertech.it> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:54:20 -0800
> Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:51:31 -0800 Alessandro Zummo
> > <a.zummo@towertech.it> wrote:
> > 
> > My long overdue response ... this patch probably went in already,
> > but what they heck, just to keep things tidy, some minor comments:
> 
>  not yet, I was waiting for you to comment back and I'm glad
>  you did.
> 
>  I'd like to have your tested-by on it.

Ouch, that might be a while.  I don't think these changes will affect
the handling of the hardware.  The reason it might take a while is we're
still on 2.6.22, and the amount of work to even try .27 or .28 would be
at least a week.  But I will see if I can fit it in at some point.  I
guess what I'm saying is waiting for that might take some patience.

> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int ds1511_rtc_update_irq_enable(struct device *dev,
> > > unsigned int enable) +{
> > 
> > I wouldn't mind if you wanted to follow the style of the file so
> > far.
> 
>  I would like to have a common style between all drivers
>  and it seems that most of them are using a one liner for prototypes.
> 
>  That's not mandatory, but if you agree I'd like to switch the
>  driver to that style.

You're the rtc maintainer, yes?  Therefore I support your desire to
have all the drivers have a similar style.  I'm just emotionally
attached to the style that I always use.  So I my plan was for you to
put all the style mods into one patch, and I can just pretend I
didn't see that patch.

>  the ds1511 driver also fails some checkpatch.pl tests,
>  which I'm going to address in a separate patch
>  
>  a third one implements devres support, which makes it
>  simpler and more readable.
> 
> > > +	st
> > > -static const struct rtc_class_ops ds1511_rtc_ops = {
> > > +static struct rtc_class_ops ds1511_rtc_ops = {
> > 
> > no more const?  These shouldn't change after compilation should
> > they?
> 
>  fixed, ty
> 
> > > - static int __devinit
> > > + static int __init
> 
>  when using platform_driver_probe it's __init.

ah.  I knew there was something going on that I was missing.
 
> > > -	return platform_driver_register(&ds1511_rtc_driver);
> > > +	return platform_driver_probe(&ds1511_rtc_driver,
> > > ds1511_rtc_probe); }
> 
> 
