Re: [PATCH] Respond:Patch 0004-Add-support-for-SUNIX-parallel-card

[Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult]

On 29.03.19 12:25, Morris Ku wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for review, my replies are inline:

https://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

> +> +static struct snx_parport_driver snx_lp_driver = {
> +> +     .name = "lx",
> +> +     .attach = snx_lp_attach,
> +> +     .detach = snx_lp_detach,
> +> +};
> +
> +yet another case of duplication of some standard struct and hard-
> +typecasting ? use struct parport_driver here.
> +
> i will use standard struct(struct lp_driver) ,

you mean struct parport_driver ?

> about struct snx_parport driver,
> i will keep current format , because add a list for store device informations. 

No, your current approach breaks heavily (eg. as soon ans something in
struct parport_driver changes). If you really need to extend it, do it
by nested structs (same like struct parport_driver nests struct
device_driver), and use the proper macros (eg. container_of(), etc)
for typecasting.

Keep in mind: kernel-internal structures are NOT fixed, they can change
anytime - this is a fundamental design decision.

> +don't reimplement existing standard functionality. use the parport
> +subsystem.
> +
> +can i drop it ? it seems that it has no effect when port gone away.

If it's not needed, remove it. We don't like dead code.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@xxxxxxxxx -- +49-151-27565287