On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 20:20, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:41:41PM +0200, Sergej Benilov wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 18:25, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +static int sis900_read_eeprom(struct net_device *net_dev, u8 *buf)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct sis900_private *sis_priv = netdev_priv(net_dev);
> > > > + void __iomem *ioaddr = sis_priv->ioaddr;
> > > > + int wait, ret = -EAGAIN;
> > > > + u16 signature;
> > > > + u16 *ebuf = (u16 *)buf;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (sis_priv->chipset_rev == SIS96x_900_REV) {
> > > > + sw32(mear, EEREQ);
> > > > + for (wait = 0; wait < 2000; wait++) {
> > > > + if (sr32(mear) & EEGNT) {
> > > > + /* read 16 bits, and index by 16 bits */
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < sis_priv->eeprom_size /
> > > > 2; i++)
> > > > + ebuf[i] =
> > > > (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, i);
> > > > + ret = 0;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + udelay(1);
> > > > + }
> > > > + sw32(mear, EEDONE);
> > >
> > > The indentation looks all messed up here.
> >
> > This has passed ./scripts/checkpatch.pl, as you had suggested for the
> > previous patch.
>
> checkpatch just checks for things like tabs vs space.
>
> I would expect the indentation to be more like:
>
>
> if (sis_priv->chipset_rev == SIS96x_900_REV) {
> sw32(mear, EEREQ);
> for (wait = 0; wait < 2000; wait++) {
> if (sr32(mear) & EEGNT) {
> /* read 16 bits, and index by 16 bits */
> for (i = 0; i < sis_priv->eeprom_size / 2;
> i++)
> ebuf[i] = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, i);
> ret = 0;
> break;
> }
> udelay(1);
> }
> sw32(mear, EEDONE);
> } else {
> signature = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, EEPROMSignature);
> if (signature != 0xffff && signature != 0x0000) {
> /* read 16 bits, and index by 16 bits */
> for (i = 0; i < sis_priv->eeprom_size / 2; i++)
> ebuf[i] = (u16)read_eeprom(ioaddr, i);
> ret = 0;
> }
> }
> return ret;
>
Ok, I see now what you mean.
I fixed the alignment.
This patch is superseded.
> > > Why do you not put the data directly into data and avoid this memory
> > > allocation, and memcpy?
> >
> > Because EEPROM data from 'eeprom->offset' offset and of 'eeprom->len'
> > length only is expected to be returned in 'data'.
>
> O.K.
>
> Andrew
