i2c-i801: Fix alignment issues
PATCH 2/3 i2c-i801: Fix alignment issues
This patch fixes alignment issues introduced by previous patch.
---
This patch depends on: [PATCH 01/03] i2c-i801: Add basic interrupt support
i2c-i801.c renamed from i2c-i801-nolayout.c +16 -16
@@ -210,24 +210,24 @@ static int i801_transaction(int xact) ((temp =i801_get_status (algo_data)) & I801_HST_STS_MASK_NORM), HZ/2); }else { -outb_p (xact |I801_START ,SMBHSTCNT ); +outb_p (xact |I801_START ,SMBHSTCNT ); -/* We will always wait for a fraction of a second! */ -do { -msleep (1 ); - temp =inb_p (SMBHSTSTS ); - }while ((temp &SMBHSTSTS_HOST_BUSY ) && (timeout++ <MAX_TIMEOUT )); +/* We will always wait for a fraction of a second! */ +do { +msleep (1 ); + temp =inb_p (SMBHSTSTS ); + }while ((temp &SMBHSTSTS_HOST_BUSY ) && (timeout++ <MAX_TIMEOUT )); -/* If the SMBus is still busy, we give up */ -if (timeout >=MAX_TIMEOUT ) { -dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"SMBus Timeout!\n" ); - result =-1 ; -/* try to stop the current command */ -dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"Terminating the current operation\n" ); -outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) |SMBHSTCNT_KILL ,SMBHSTCNT ); -msleep (1 ); -outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) & (~SMBHSTCNT_KILL ),SMBHSTCNT ); - } +/* If the SMBus is still busy, we give up */ +if (timeout >=MAX_TIMEOUT ) { +dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"SMBus Timeout!\n" ); + result =-1 ; +/* try to stop the current command */ +dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"Terminating the current operation\n" ); +outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) |SMBHSTCNT_KILL ,SMBHSTCNT ); +msleep (1 ); +outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) & (~SMBHSTCNT_KILL ),SMBHSTCNT ); + } }if (temp &SMBHSTSTS_FAILED ) {
_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
Quoted 39 lines · Ivo Manca
This patch fixes alignment issues introduced by previous patch.
Signed-off-by Ivo Manca <[email protected]>---
This patch depends on: [PATCH 01/03] i2c-i801: Add basic interrupt supporti2c-i801.c renamed from i2c-i801-nolayout.c +9
-16@@ -210,24 +210,24 @@ static int i801_transaction(int xact) ((temp =i801_get_status (algo_data)) & I801_HST_STS_MASK_NORM), HZ/2); }else { -outb_p (xact |I801_START ,SMBHSTCNT ); +outb_p (xact |I801_START ,SMBHSTCNT ); -/* We will always wait for a fraction of a second! */ -do { -msleep (1 ); - temp =inb_p (SMBHSTSTS ); - }while ((temp &SMBHSTSTS_HOST_BUSY ) && (timeout++ <MAX_TIMEOUT )); +/* We will always wait for a fraction of a second! */ +do { +msleep (1 ); + temp =inb_p (SMBHSTSTS ); + }while ((temp &SMBHSTSTS_HOST_BUSY ) && (timeout++ <MAX_TIMEOUT )); -/* If the SMBus is still busy, we give up */ -if (timeout >=MAX_TIMEOUT ) { -dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"SMBus Timeout!\n" ); - result =-1 ; -/* try to stop the current command */ -dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"Terminating the current operation\n" ); -outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) |SMBHSTCNT_KILL ,SMBHSTCNT ); -msleep (1 ); -outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) & (~SMBHSTCNT_KILL ),SMBHSTCNT ); - } +/* If the SMBus is still busy, we give up */ +if (timeout >=MAX_TIMEOUT ) { +dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"SMBus Timeout!\n" );
i2c-i801.c static int i801_transaction(int xact) · line 233
Quoted 10 lines
i2c-i801.c renamed from i2c-i801-nolayout.c +7
-0+ result =-1 ; +/* try to stop the current command */ +dev_dbg (&I801_dev->dev,"Terminating the current operation\n" ); +outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) |SMBHSTCNT_KILL ,SMBHSTCNT ); +msleep (1 ); +outb_p (inb_p (SMBHSTCNT ) & (~SMBHSTCNT_KILL ),SMBHSTCNT ); + } }if (temp &SMBHSTSTS_FAILED ) {
OK. There's no real need to make this a separate patch. In fact I think your first patch would be easier to read with these alignment issues fixed, as it makes it easier to figure out what code paths your changes are replacing. As a matter of fact, I applied this second patch before reviewing the first one.
Signature · 6 lines
Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
Quoted 7 lines · Jean Delvare
OK. There's no real need to make this a separate patch. In fact I think your first patch would be easier to read with these alignment issues fixed, as it makes it easier to figure out what code paths your changes are replacing. As a matter of fact, I applied this second patch before reviewing the first one.
Hey Jean,
First of all, thanks a lot for reviewing. It's very appriciated. I've read and noted your comments, but will reply more detailed to the first patch later. Quite busy lately (new house, graduated => new job)..
I thought it was easier (and even required) to seperate the patches this way, but I seem to have been wrong ;p. Anyway, next time, this patch will be incorporated with the first patch. I'll leave the third patch in place, since it's completely unrelated.
Thanks,
Ivo
_______________________________________________
i2c mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c