Jim,
-----Original Message----- From: Marek Vasut [mailto:marex@denx.de] Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 4:39 AM To: Jim Lin Cc: Tom Rini; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Tom Warren; Stephen Warren; Tom Warren Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] ARM: Tegra: USB: Add driver support for Tegra30/Tegra114
Dear Jim Lin,
[...]
This is a problem with the struct-based access indeed. I agree with Tom it'd be worth to at least try distilling the common part into header shared between those three CPUs.
OK. I will add this into next version of patch.
I did a quick hack for arch-tegra/usb.h (common defines) and arch-tegra114/usb.h (register struct plus some unique defines) that I'll send you as an example.
btw you're also adding some kernel-doc-alike annotations to functions, why don't you follow kerneldoc style altogether?
I don't understand what you meant here. Could you give me an example? Like what I did is wrong or not good. And what is correct or better one.
These kinds of annotations:
+/*
- Process a list of nodes, adding them to our list of SDMMC ports.
- @param blob fdt blob
- @param node_list list of nodes to process (any <=0 are ignored)
- @param count number of nodes to process
- @return 0 if ok, -1 on error
- */
See http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CodingStyle at the bottom for the right style.
Note that the 'SDMMC ports' part s/b 'USB ports', or 'USB controllers'. Please change it.
Marek is asking why we have inconsistent function commenting in ehci-tegra.c - read the kernel.doc howto pointed to in the URL above, and make sure any function/struct/enum comments adhere to that style (/** to start, Return: instead of @return, etc.), so that one can run the kernel-doc scripts and extract info about our EHCI driver's functions, etc. This is something I'll look at doing in all the Tegra-specific drivers and source in a future patchset.
Tom
Best regards, Marek Vasut
-- nvpublic