On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Friday 14 October 2011 23:38:50 Vadim Bendebury wrote:
--- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/tpm/generic_lpc_tpm.c
+#define TPM_TIMEOUT_ERR (~0) +#define TPM_DRIVER_ERR (-1)
these are the same thing. another reason why you shouldn't mix ~ with normal values. use -2 or something.
ok
+/* TPM access going through macros to make tracing easier. */ +#define tpm_read(ptr) ({ \
- u32 __ret; \
- __ret = (sizeof(*ptr) == 1) ? readb(ptr) : readl(ptr); \
- debug(PREFIX "Read reg 0x%x returns 0x%x\n", \
- (u32)ptr - (u32)lpc_tpm_dev, __ret); \
- __ret; })
that last "__ret;" is indented way too far. it should be on the same level as "u32 __ret;" and such.
ok
+#define tpm_write(value, ptr) ({ \
- u32 __v = value; \
- debug(PREFIX "Write reg 0x%x with 0x%x\n", \
- (u32)ptr - (u32)lpc_tpm_dev, __v); \
- if (sizeof(*ptr) == 1) \
- writeb(__v, ptr); \
- else \
- writel(__v, ptr); })
({...}) doesn't make sense here. this should be a do{...}while(0).
ok
- printf("%s:%d - failed to get 'command_ready' status\n",
- __FILE__, __LINE__);
replace __FILE__/__LINE__ with __func__ here and everywhere else in the file -mike
Mike, you seem the only one concerned with this. As I described in our previous exchange, I believe specifying file and line number is better. So, I would like to hear a second opinion on this.
cheers, /vb