Return-path: Received: from mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.63]:33714 "EHLO mail-gw2-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbaL1Vzf (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:55:35 -0500 Message-ID: <54A07C54.6040407@broadcom.com> (sfid-20141228_225539_536339_E3FDB49C) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:55:32 +0100 From: Arend van Spriel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vaishali Thakkar CC: Samuel Ortiz , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] NFC: port100: Introduce the use of function put_unaligned_le16 References: <20141224131557.GA2591@vaishali-Ideapad-Z570> <54A01EBF.2020608@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/28/14 17:34, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > > On Dec 28, 2014 8:46 PM, "Arend van Spriel" > wrote: > > > > + Samuel > > > > > > On 12/28/14 12:33, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Vaishali Thakkar > >> > wrote: > >>> > >>> This patch introduces the use of function put_unaligned_le16. > >>> > >>> This is done using Coccinelle and semantic patch used is as follows: > >>> > >>> @a@ > >>> typedef u16, __le16; > >>> {u16,__le16} e16; > >>> identifier tmp; > >>> expression ptr; > >>> expression y,e; > >>> type T; > >>> @@ > >>> > >>> - tmp = cpu_to_le16(y); > >>> > >>> <+... when != tmp > >>> ( > >>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, > \(2\|sizeof(u16)\|sizeof(__le16)\|sizeof(e16)\)); > >>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr); > >>> | > >>> - memcpy(ptr, (T)&tmp, ...); > >>> + put_unaligned_le16(y,ptr); > >>> ) > >>> ...+> > >>> ? tmp = e > >>> > >>> @@ type T; identifier a.tmp; @@ > >>> > >>> - T tmp; > >>> ...when != tmp > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar > > >>> --- > >>> Changes since v1: > >>> has arch-specific knowlege of which of > >>> the implementations needs to be used. So, include it instaed > >>> of. > >>> Changes since v2: > >>> Fix typing mistake in subject > >>> > >>> drivers/nfc/port100.c | 6 ++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/nfc/port100.c b/drivers/nfc/port100.c > >>> index 4ac4d31..440f0f3 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/nfc/port100.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/nfc/port100.c > >>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > >>> #include > >>> #include > >>> #include > >>> +#include > >>> > >>> #define VERSION "0.1" > >>> > >>> @@ -1136,7 +1137,6 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct > nfc_digital_dev *ddev, > >>> { > >>> struct port100 *dev = nfc_digital_get_drvdata(ddev); > >>> struct port100_cb_arg *cb_arg; > >>> - __le16 timeout; > >>> > >>> cb_arg = kzalloc(sizeof(struct port100_cb_arg), GFP_KERNEL); > >>> if (!cb_arg) > >>> @@ -1145,9 +1145,7 @@ static int port100_in_send_cmd(struct > nfc_digital_dev *ddev, > >>> cb_arg->complete_cb = cb; > >>> cb_arg->complete_arg = arg; > >>> > >>> - timeout = cpu_to_le16(_timeout * 10); > >>> - > >>> - memcpy(skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16)),&timeout, sizeof(__le16)); > >>> > >>> + put_unaligned_le16(_timeout * 10, skb_push(skb, sizeof(__le16))); > >>> > >>> return port100_send_cmd_async(dev, PORT100_CMD_IN_COMM_RF, skb, > >>> port100_in_comm_rf_complete, cb_arg); > >>> -- > >>> 1.9.1 > >>> > >> > >> Hello...Can someone please review my patch so that I can have idea > >> about I am on a right way or not?? > >> I think this is missed by developers. > > > > > > Generally that's not how it works. You either get comments or not. It > may also help to send the patch to the maintainer, ie. Samuel Ortiz. > > Oh.ok. Sorry for the noise. > > Actually original patch was Cc'd to maintainer also. But as a newbie, I > thought may be it is missed or I am wrong somewhere. That's why just > asked it on mailing list. Anyways got your point. No problem. You were not that noisy ;-) Regards, Arend > Thanks. > > > Regards, > > Arend > > > >> Thank You. > >> > > >