Re: New and improved? patch

> usage:
>   
>> [-f force_root ]
>>     
>
> Suggestion:  [-f force_root_node ] or maybe "desired_root_node" or maybe
> "root_node" or maybe just "node", same as -c -d -o -s
>
>   
I think the variable name is fine, but the man page should be expanded.

>> -g: broadcast gap_count by phy_config packet
>>     
>
> Suggestion: -g: set gap_count by broadcasting phy_config packet
> or maybe just: -g: set gap_count
>   
I agree.  The description is deficient and should not only be expanded, but
should reference the IEEE specifications, i.e. 1394a-2005
>> -f: broadcast force_root by phy_config packet
>>     
>
> Suggestion: -f force a node to become the root node by broadcasting phy_config packet
> or maybe just: -f force a node to become the root node
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -f -5
> fwcontrol: main:set_root_node out of range: No such file or directory
>
> "No such file or directory" seems wrong
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -g 70
> fwcontrol: main:set_gap_count out of range: No such file or directory
>
> "No such file or directory" seems wrong
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -d 70
> fwcontrol: no such node -1.
>
> (a) 70 becomes -1 ?
> (b) Wouldn't -d have the same range as -f ?
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -c 70
> fwcontrol: no such node -1.
>
> (a) 70 becomes -1 ?
> (b) Wouldn't -c have the same range as -f ?
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -o 70
> fwcontrol: main: node out of range: 70
> : No such file or directory
>
> "No such file or directory" seems wrong
>
> 7.0 AMD64 # ./fwcontrol -s 70
> fwcontrol: main: node out of range: 70
> : No such file or directory
>
> "No such file or directory" seems wrong
>
>
>
> -               asyreq->pkt.mode.ld[1] |= (root_node & 0x3f) << 24 | 1 << 23;
> +               asyreq->pkt.mode.ld[1] |= ((root_node << 24) | (1 << 23));
>         if (gap_count >= 0)
> -               asyreq->pkt.mode.ld[1] |= 1 << 22 | (gap_count & 0x3f) << 16;
> +               asyreq->pkt.mode.ld[1] |= ((1 << 22) | (gap_count << 16));
>
> Any reason for pulling out the "& 0x3f" ?  Yeah it should be redundant
> now that there is range checking on the arguments, but as you said,
> fwcontrol is dangerous and the mask makes it safer at very little cost.
>
>
>   
I find a range check to be an easier reference than a bit mask/shift 
operation.
I'd like the next guy who comes through the code to be able to understand
the changes and the code path.  Also, more comments are probably required.
> -               for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> -                       snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "%s.%d", devbase, i);
> -                       if ((*fd = open(name, O_RDWR)) >= 0)
> -                               break;
> -               }
> +               *fd = open(devname, O_RDWR);
>
>   

> Looking at various firewire man pages, I don't find any explanation of
> the various /dev filenames, such as what the .%d part was/is for.  So I
> have no clue why this code was changed.  Did I miss a discussion?
>   
I'm going to have to put a big "I have no idea" here.  This predates my 
attempts
at stabilization.  Let's examine it further in the driver code.  Perhaps 
that will explain it's use.

-- 
Sean Bruno
MiraLink Corporation
6015 NE 80th Ave, Ste 100
Portland, OR 97218
Cell 503-358-6832
Phone 503-621-5143
Fax 503-621-5199
MSN: [email protected]
Google:  [email protected]

_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-firewire
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"